Golnaz Sara Simaei

This ruling addresses the Applicant's motion and the Respondent's cross-motion concerning financial disclosure, refused undertakings, and non-party disclosure from the Applicant's father.

The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in disclosure, dismissing most of the extensive requests from both parties as irrelevant or disproportionate "fishing expeditions." Limited disclosure was granted, primarily related to the Respondent's income and specific non-party financial information (laptop receipt, credit card statements) from the Applicant's father, while other requests were deemed unnecessary or an invasion of privacy.

The Respondent Father moved to vary a previous order to expand his parenting time with the child.

The Applicant Mother opposed, proposing a more restrictive expansion.

The court, considering the child's best interests and a s. 30 Assessment, granted a graduated expansion of the father's parenting time, including alternate weekends, midweek time, and extended summer holiday periods, while rejecting some of the father's specific requests regarding transitions and travel distance.

The court emphasized the importance of promoting the child's relationship with both parents despite high parental conflict.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside an order granted on an unopposed 14B motion, arguing that the court granted the order prematurely, before the expiry of the response period under the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the original order could not stand due to procedural irregularity.

Alternatively, applying the three-part test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found the respondent moved promptly, had a plausible explanation for default, and an arguable case on the merits regarding unresolved parenting issues and the binding nature of the minutes of settlement.

The original order was set aside, and a case conference was ordered.

A custody and access trial concerning two children following a high-conflict separation.

The applicant alleged the respondent posed safety risks and sought supervised access, while the respondent alleged parental alienation and sought custody.

The court found the applicant had engaged in persistent conduct undermining the children’s relationship with the respondent, including numerous unsubstantiated allegations and interference with contact.

Applying the best interests test under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court maintained the children’s primary residence with the applicant but implemented expanded access for the respondent and reunification counselling for one child.

The order was framed as temporary pending resolution of financial issues and a possible updated report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis following successful motions regarding the respondent's breach of solicitor-client privilege.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the complexity of the issues and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court reduced the applicant's claimed fees by 15% for unrelated services but ordered the respondent to pay $47,328.90 in costs immediately, rejecting his request to pay from the future sale of the matrimonial home.

On a family law motion, the court found that the respondent deliberately accessed the applicant's personal email account and obtained communications protected by solicitor-client privilege, including an email from counsel and legal accounts describing services rendered.

Applying settled privilege principles, the court held the communications were confidential legal advice and remained privileged despite containing some factual content.

Because the breach was deliberate and the respondent was found untruthful, the court imposed significant procedural sanctions, required an affidavit disclosing all intercepted communications and their dissemination, ordered an undertaking against future interception or recording, prohibited retention of former counsel in related proceedings, and awarded full indemnity costs.

The court also removed privileged complaint materials from the court record and struck portions of the respondent's affidavit referring to case conference discussions.

In a family law proceeding between spouses, the applicant brought a motion seeking removal of the respondent’s solicitor of record and related relief after the respondent obtained and filed an email between the applicant and her counsel.

The email was a solicitor-client communication that had been accessed through the applicant’s personal email account.

The court considered whether the respondent’s counsel acted improperly by reviewing the email and including it in an affidavit.

Applying authorities concerning inadvertent disclosure of privileged communications, the court accepted counsel’s explanation that she questioned her client about the source of the email, believed it had been obtained from a business account, and concluded it did not contain litigation strategy.

The court found no misconduct warranting removal or sanctions against counsel.

The appellant sought to appeal an interim spousal support order made under the Divorce Act as of right, arguing that section 21(1) of the Divorce Act provides a direct right of appeal that is paramount over the leave requirement in section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal held that section 21(6) of the Divorce Act requires appeals to be asserted according to the ordinary procedure of the province, which in Ontario includes the leave requirement.

The court found no conflict between the federal and provincial legislation, concluding that the doctrine of paramountcy was not engaged and leave to appeal was required.

The parties executed a handwritten Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) following collaborative family law negotiations.

The husband subsequently paid the wife $250,000 as agreed, but the wife later refused to finalize the formal separation agreement.

The trial judge declared the MOA invalid, finding it was merely an outline and that further financial disclosure was required.

The Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal, holding that the MOA contained all essential terms and the parties' conduct demonstrated an intention to be bound.

The MOA was declared a valid and binding domestic contract.