Harold Niman

This motion concerns parenting time for three young children (3-year-old twins and a 2-year-old) following the arrest and subsequent withdrawal of criminal charges against the mother.

The mother sought to vary a temporary parenting order that had limited her to seven hours of supervised parenting time per week.

The father opposed the variation, arguing the mother engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, including orchestrating an elaborate scheme involving impersonation and threats.

The court found insufficient evidence to conclude the mother was responsible for the scheme, but remained concerned about her pattern of fabricating stories about deceased or non-existent children told to multiple individuals.

The court increased the mother's parenting time to include overnight visits supervised by maternal grandparents, while maintaining supervision pending trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a motion to quash an appeal in a family law matter concerning a motion for a sealing order and publication ban to protect a child’s privacy.

The court held that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, and thus any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The decision reviews the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, emphasizing that privacy and sealing orders are generally collateral to the main issues in family law proceedings and do not determine substantive rights.

The court also declined to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court.

This costs decision follows a complex family law trial between Barbara Lang-Newlands and Ian Newlands.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, settlement offers, and relative success on issues, ultimately awarding the applicant, Barbara, $2,800,000 in costs.

The decision details the application of the Family Law Rules regarding offers to settle, the reasonableness of the parties’ behaviour, and the principles guiding costs awards in family law litigation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Barbara Lang-Newlands regarding the operation of the automatic stay under rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following a family law trial judgment.

The court addressed whether certain monetary awards (post-separation adjustments) should be characterized as support and thus exempt from the stay, and whether the stay should be lifted or maintained on various payments pending appeal.

The court declined to recharacterize the payments as support, but exercised its discretion to lift the stay on Ian Newlands' obligation to pay post-separation adjustments, given the risk that Barb would not recover the funds if the stay remained.

The court ordered Barb to pay Ian the net difference and expedited the appeal.

The decision addresses whether Joselene Yacoub’s lawyers, Harold Niman and Hayley Cairns, should be removed due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from Niman’s brief 2018 consultation with the respondent, Louis Serafini Jr., regarding his divorce from a former spouse.

The court finds that while a solicitor-client relationship existed, the matters were not sufficiently related and no relevant confidential information was imparted.

The motion to remove counsel is dismissed.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement on grounds of duress, alleging blackmail by the Respondent and his girlfriend.

The court conducted a bifurcated trial on this issue.

The court found that while the Applicant felt pressured and vulnerable, her vulnerabilities were compensated by her lawyer's professional assistance, and the alleged blackmail by the girlfriend occurred after the agreement was signed.

The application to set aside the agreement on grounds of duress was dismissed.

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage.

The applicant's father had established a highly successful business.

Before the marriage, the father settled a trust holding shares in the business for the applicant.

During the marriage, the applicant received the shares and later participated in an estate freeze, transferring the shares to a holding company in exchange for preferred shares, while a new trust (the NFT) acquired the common shares.

The applicant and her children were discretionary beneficiaries of the NFT.

The main issue was whether the applicant's interest in the NFT was property subject to equalization, and if so, whether it was excluded as a gift.

The court found the interest was property, but bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Shinder v. Shinder, held it was an excluded gift.

The court also determined the valuation of various assets, dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim to a cottage, and ordered the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $1.18M and needs-based spousal support of $25,649 per month.

The Applicant sought to continue a preservation order against the Respondent's property sale proceeds and for interim disbursements.

The Respondent sought to lift the preservation order.

The court continued the preservation order under section 40 of the Family Law Act, finding a risk of dissipation and potential irreparable harm to the Applicant's spousal support claim.

However, the Applicant's request for interim disbursements was dismissed, as she was not found to be impecunious and the requested expenses were deemed premature.

This is a costs endorsement following a partial summary judgment motion where the applicant sought to dismiss the respondent's spousal support claims, arguing the parties were not "spouses" under the Family Law Act.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding the cohabitation issue too complex for summary judgment.

The respondent, as the successful party, sought full indemnity costs of $89,561.88 or partial indemnity costs of $58,390.39.

The applicant sought to defer costs or fix them at $30,000.

The court, applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness under the Family Law Rules, found the applicant's conduct not unreasonable for bringing the motion but reduced the respondent's claimed costs by excluding time for case conferences and questioning that would be useful at trial.

The court awarded the respondent $50,000 in costs.

This is a costs endorsement arising from a jurisdiction motion and a Rule 25(19) motion.

The court had previously determined that Ontario had jurisdiction over spousal support claims but that property division claims were governed by Iranian law under s.15 of the Family Law Act.

The applicant, Ms. Namdar, was found to be the successful party on the underlying jurisdiction motion and sought substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent, Mr. Maali, argued for divided success and sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court found that Mr. Maali's offer to settle did not constitute a true compromise, thus not triggering Rule 18(14) cost consequences.

Considering the complexity and importance of the issues, and the reasonable conduct of both parties, the court awarded Ms. Namdar fixed costs and disbursements of $32,250, which included expert fees, finding her claimed fees of over $70,000 to be disproportionate.

The appellant sought to appeal a costs award from a family law arbitration concerning retroactive and prospective spousal support.

The court addressed the jurisdictional question of whether leave was required for an appeal of a costs award from an arbitration, finding it was not required where the arbitration agreement did not stipulate it.

Applying appellate standards of review, the court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no errors in law, palpable and overriding errors of fact, or errors in principle regarding the determination of the successful party or the finding of unreasonable conduct by both parties.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The applicant, Setareh Namdar, brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to change or delete parts of a previous order made on March 25, 2024.

The applicant sought to remove sentences from paragraph 63 of the prior endorsement, arguing they mistakenly conflated 'property division' with 'equitable claims' and were made without proper notice regarding equitable claims.

The respondent, Amir Ali Maali, argued Rule 25(19) could not be used to reargue the case.

The court found it had jurisdiction under Rule 25(19)(d) because the issue of whether the Family Law Act applied to the applicant's specific equitable claims for unjust enrichment and joint family venture was not fully before the court or noticed.

The court clarified that while s.15 of the Family Law Act governs property rights based on habitual residence, it does not necessarily apply to all equitable claims, which are rooted in common law.

The motion was granted, and paragraph 63 of the prior endorsement was replaced to reflect this clarification.

The applicant, Raymond Reichert, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's, Tamara Ann Bandola's, claims for spousal support.

The central issue was whether the parties qualified as "spouses" under s.29 of the Family Law Act, which requires continuous cohabitation for three years or more.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the determination of cohabitation involved complex facts and credibility issues.

The judge concluded that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings with other intermingled claims, such as unjust enrichment and tort claims, which rely on the same factual matrix.

The court emphasized that hiving off this issue would not be more efficient and that a full trial with viva voce evidence was necessary to justly resolve the dispute.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the applicant to appoint an investigative receiver-monitor and for interim disbursements in a complex corporate/family dispute.

Although most issues were settled just before the scheduled hearing, the court found compelling reasons to award costs to the applicant due to the respondents' litigation conduct, including failure to provide proper financial disclosure and late capitulation on key issues.

The applicant was deemed the successful party, having secured the appointment of their proposed receiver and interim disbursements of $1 million.

The court awarded $125,000 in costs to the applicant, balancing the applicant's success against the proportionality of the fees incurred, and declined to order joint and several liability as requested, preserving the issue for trial.

The Applicant sought orders for a significant distribution from the net proceeds of sale of a jointly held property and substantial interim legal fees and disbursements.

The Respondent opposed, proposing a smaller, equal distribution of proceeds and challenging the quantum of interim fees.

The court ordered an equal distribution of $250,000 to each party from the sale proceeds and significantly reduced the Applicant's requested interim fees, ordering the Respondent to pay $725,000 for the Applicant's future litigation expenses.

The court found the Applicant's claims for spousal support and equalization had merit, but emphasized the need for reasonableness in fee requests and the complexity of financial disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the production of a corporate server (Decentral Server) for disclosure purposes, arguing the respondents had not adequately searched it.

This request had been previously dismissed by Justice Kiteley.

The applicant sought to revisit the prior decision, asserting new material facts, including the respondent's alleged failure to comply with an offer to conduct further searches and new expert evidence on e-discovery methods.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the alleged new facts were either not fundamentally different from what was previously argued or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the original motion.

The court affirmed that interlocutory orders are binding unless new, material, and previously undiscoverable facts are presented.

The adult children of the parties brought a motion to be added as third parties to a long-standing family law application, asserting that their interests as discretionary beneficiaries in a family trust (Newlands Family Trust) could be prejudiced by decisions made at the upcoming trial.

The motion was filed on the eve of a six-week trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling explanation for the significant delay in bringing the application, and noting the uncertainty regarding the children's standing and the prematurity of their purported cause of action, as discretionary beneficiaries do not possess a direct property interest in trust assets prior to appropriation.

The court emphasized that adding parties late in proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only when demonstrably necessary for the just determination of the litigation.

Costs were awarded against the moving parties.

This decision addresses the costs of a complex motion concerning the interpretation of an interim preservation order's "usual and ordinary course of business" term.

The applicant sought partial recovery costs of approximately $105,000, while the respondents proposed $25,000.

The court awarded the applicant $98,000, finding them overwhelmingly successful on the key issues.

The court emphasized proportionality, the complexity and high stakes of the litigation, and the respondents' conduct, including significant delays, late affidavit delivery, and a "scorched earth policy," which unnecessarily increased costs.

At the commencement of a family law trial, the applicant brought a motion to adjourn the trial and strike the respondent's pleadings due to the respondent's failure to provide court-ordered disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion to adjourn and strike, noting the extensive procedural history, previous orders mandating the trial proceed, and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to resolve matters efficiently.

The court granted the applicant's request for a non-dissipation order regarding the respondent's shares in certain companies.

The Applicant sought an adjournment of trial and an order striking the Respondent's pleadings due to alleged non-disclosure and breaches of prior court orders.

The Applicant also requested a non-dissipation order regarding the Respondent's shares in certain companies.

The court denied the adjournment and the request to strike pleadings, emphasizing the long procedural history, previous judicial directives for the trial to proceed, and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that late disclosure could be addressed through negative inferences and costs at trial.

A non-dissipation order was granted, but only as it affected the Respondent's shares, not third parties.