Gonen Snir

The Applicant's request for an urgent motion regarding access to his 11-month-old daughter was denied due to the Respondent's offer of twice-weekly access visits.

The Respondent sought costs for the urgent motion, to which she was presumptively entitled.

The Applicant resisted, arguing he did not request an urgent motion and that the Respondent's access offers were conditional.

The court found the Applicant clearly requested an urgent motion and that the Respondent's offer was unconditional.

The court assessed costs at $900 for the Respondent, inclusive of HST and disbursements, rejecting the principle of full recovery in family law and emphasizing proportionality.

The Respondent brought an urgent motion to vary a prior order and obtain shared custody of the four children.

The Applicant opposed, seeking continuation of the prior order and supervised access for the Respondent, citing concerns about the Respondent's disposition, anger management, and past aggressive behaviour towards her, a step-child, and a family pet.

The court found an "air of reality" to the Applicant's allegations, including verified physical discipline and emotional harm by Family and Children's Services (FCS) Renfrew County, and outstanding criminal charges against the Respondent.

Given the conflicting evidence and early stage of proceedings, the court dismissed the Respondent's motion for shared custody and ordered temporary supervised access for the Respondent, to be facilitated by an agreed-upon family member or acquaintance, and later at a supervised access centre.

The court also ordered FCS Renfrew County to provide a report and prohibited negative discussions about the other parent or the proceedings with the children.

The applicant brought a Motion to Change seeking to reduce his spousal support obligations due to a material change in circumstances following his involuntary retirement and subsequent re-employment at a lower salary.

The respondent conceded the material change, leaving only the quantum and duration of support in issue.

The court varied the spousal support to $3,000 per month for an indefinite period, effective January 1, 2019, finding this amount appropriately reflected the parties' original separation agreement which set support near the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of third-party mental health and police records relating to the respondent mother in a child protection status review proceeding.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing it was a fishing expedition and an invasion of her privacy.

The court granted the motion, finding that the records may be relevant to assessing the mother's ability to parent and the children's best interests, and that the mother had not provided a physician's statement indicating that disclosure would cause harm.

This endorsement determines costs following a prior motion.

The court granted the respondent's request for late filing of cost submissions, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant sought full recovery of costs ($12,509.67) as the successful party on the underlying motion and due to an offer to settle.

The respondent sought full recovery of his costs ($14,128.25), arguing greater success and unreasonable conduct by the applicant.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, supported by her reasonable offer to settle, which was more favorable than the respondent's offers.

However, the court did not find either party's conduct unreasonable to warrant full recovery.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 in favor of the applicant, enforceable as child support.

The applicant father brought an ex-parte motion for an order directing police to apprehend the parties' four children and return them to him, alleging the respondent mother had abducted them.

The mother had fled to a women's shelter, alleging domestic abuse, and her location was known only to the Children's Aid Society.

The court dismissed the ex-parte apprehension request, finding that abruptly removing the children from their primary caregiver to change their schooling and healthcare would be contrary to their best interests.

However, the court ordered the matter to proceed as an urgent motion on notice and permitted substituted service on the mother via the Children's Aid Society.

The applicant sought a retroactive increase in child support from January 2013, while the respondent opposed and claimed overpayment.

The court imputed income to the applicant due to voluntary underemployment and determined both parties' incomes for child support purposes.

Applying the D.B.S. principles, the court found the respondent liable for retroactive child support from January 2013, adjusting the amount to reflect the original separation agreement's deviation from Child Support Guideline table amounts.

The court also addressed s.7 expenses, life insurance obligations, and Child Tax Benefit claims, ultimately ordering a set-off of the respondent's arrears against the applicant's future child support obligations.

The respondent, Gady Sirota, brought a motion to remove Gonen Snir as counsel for the applicant, Bracha Yocheved Sirota, alleging a conflict of interest due to a prior close personal relationship and the exchange of confidential information relevant to the matrimonial proceeding.

The court found that Mr. Snir had a close personal relationship with Mr. Sirota and received confidential information, including advice on marital difficulties, which created a clear conflict of interest.

Despite the applicant's argument regarding her right to counsel of choice and language barriers, the court ordered the removal of Mr. Snir as counsel, emphasizing the integrity of the judicial system over the right to chosen counsel in this instance.

The applicant sought unsupervised access and weekend access to his son, and to be relieved of random steroid testing.

The respondent opposed unsupervised access, seeking continued supervision, and requested child support based on an imputed income of $30,000.

The court ordered temporary supervised weekend access for the father, maintained the mother's primary residency and decision-making authority, and continued the father's obligation for random steroid testing.

The existing child support order was continued, and the father was ordered to provide full financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which an adverse inference could be drawn, and an income of $30,000 per annum could be imputed.

The applicant's contempt motion against the respondent was dismissed.

Despite the respondent's success, the court found his behaviour unreasonable due to non-compliance with prior disclosure orders, failure to disclose relevant financial changes, and not making an offer to settle.

The applicant's motion was also deemed ill-considered as some allegations related to defunct orders or could have been addressed otherwise.

Applying the Serra principles, the court awarded the respondent reduced costs of $1,000, payable in installments, reflecting both his success and his unreasonable conduct.

The applicant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father, alleging he failed to comply with four court orders relating to disclosure and access.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that two of the interim orders had been superceded by a final settlement, the father's failure to disclose a change in spousal support did not breach an order requiring disclosure of child support changes, and the mother failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the father breached the final access order.

The applicant father and respondent mother both brought motions for temporary relief regarding their child.

The father, who had been convicted of sexually assaulting the mother, sought gradually increasing access, while the mother sought sole custody and to terminate any access.

The court found that the mother had previously consented to an order for supervised access and denied her request to appeal it.

Applying the principle that terminating access is a remedy of last resort, the court ordered temporary supervised access for the father for one hour twice a month.

The court also granted the mother temporary sole custody and dispensed with the father's consent for travel and schooling.

The applicant brought a successful motion for a temporary order to enroll the parties' child in a new school.

Both parties subsequently sought costs for the motion.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, despite her unilateral action in changing the child's school prior to obtaining a court order.

Applying the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $4,673.76 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In this matrimonial trial, the applicant wife sought sole custody, child support, and an equalization payment, while the respondent husband sought joint custody and spousal support.

The court found the respondent to be highly evasive, having failed to comply with numerous disclosure orders and having fabricated a backdated trust agreement to hide his ownership of a lucrative Israeli business.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, dispensed with the respondent's consent for the child's passport, imputed the respondent's income at $47,000 per year for child support purposes, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $235,209.75.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought an interim order for her eldest daughter, Nora, to attend École Trille des Bois and its after-school daycare program, following her relocation to a new school district.

The respondent father opposed, requesting Nora remain at École Élémentaire Francojeunesse, the school she previously attended.

The court, noting the high-conflict nature of the parties' litigation and the father's lack of a viable alternative plan for Nora's daily care, granted the mother's motion on a temporary, without prejudice basis.

The judge found the mother's plan to be in the child's best interests, as it provided a comprehensive solution for school and daycare without requiring a variation of the father's limited access schedule.

The father's credibility was also questioned regarding his claims of ignorance about the mother's address and the child's bus travel history.

This costs decision followed two motions concerning the sale of a matrimonial home, where the Respondent repeatedly failed to complete the purchase.

The Applicant sought costs for her successful motion and the dismissal of the Respondent's cross-motion.

The court found the Respondent's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, including bringing an unauthorized cross-motion and making inaccurate assertions.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the Applicant fixed costs, emphasizing the importance of the issues and the Respondent's conduct.

The applicant wife brought a motion for authorization to list and sell the jointly owned matrimonial home without the respondent husband's consent.

The parties had previously agreed the husband would purchase the wife's interest, but he repeatedly failed to obtain financing and close the transaction, causing the wife financial hardship.

The court dismissed the husband's cross-motion to delay the sale and granted the wife's motion, allowing the husband a final 14-day extension to close, failing which the wife was granted sole authority to list and sell the property.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Respondent father successfully sought an order for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to decline jurisdiction over custody and access issues, but failed to obtain an order for the children's return to Lebanon.

The court considered the father's mixed success, the mother's conduct in removing the children from Lebanon and non-disclosure, and the mother's financial circumstances and the potential impact on the children.

The court awarded the father partial costs, significantly less than requested, along with disbursements and translation costs.

The mother secretly removed the children from Lebanon to Ontario without the father's consent.

The father commenced proceedings in Lebanon and brought a motion in Ontario asking the court to decline jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that the children's habitual residence remained in Lebanon, as their removal without consent did not alter it.

The court declined jurisdiction over custody and access but refused to enforce the Lebanese order returning the children because the mother had not received reasonable notice of that proceeding.