Harold Niman

Following an urgent family law motion granting the wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs on the basis that the respondent acted in bad faith by returning to the home immediately after being acquitted of criminal charges, knowing the applicant was bound by an undertaking restricting proximity and communication.

The court reviewed the surrounding circumstances and prior findings that the respondent’s actions demonstrated poor judgment and created an urgent situation requiring court intervention.

Applying Rule 24(1)(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith.

Full indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the applicant.

The applicant sought costs following a contested family law motion, requesting full recovery costs of $33,539 or alternatively partial recovery costs of $22,136.

The respondent argued that a clause in a Partial Interim Separation Agreement barred any costs award or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to a substantially lower amount.

The court held that the contractual clause requiring each party to pay their own legal and professional fees did not waive the applicant’s right to seek a judicial award of costs.

Finding the applicant to be the successful party and noting that an offer to settle engaged full recovery entitlement for part of the proceeding, the court reduced the claimed amounts due to excessive hourly rates, duplication of work, and unnecessary attendance by multiple counsel.

Costs were fixed on an all‑inclusive basis.

The respondent moved to bifurcate a family law trial to determine custody, support, and the validity of a marriage contract before addressing equalization of net family property.

The applicant opposed and sought extensive financial disclosure, arguing the issues of property division and spousal support were interrelated.

The court held that the validity of the marriage contract and spousal support analysis under Miglin require knowledge of the parties’ financial positions at separation.

Because property equalization must precede spousal support and the issues were intertwined, bifurcation would risk prejudice and inefficiency.

The motion for bifurcation was dismissed and the respondent was ordered to provide full financial disclosure regarding assets and liabilities at separation.

In a family law motion, the applicant sought retroactive spousal support and interim funding for legal fees and expert disbursements to review the respondent’s financial expert reports.

The court considered evidence of the respondent’s significant income and complex business interests, as well as the applicant’s limited financial resources.

Applying the principles governing interim disbursement orders under rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court emphasized the need to level the playing field where one party controls financial information and resources.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $8,500 per month commencing July 1, 2012 and directed the respondent to pay all section 7 expenses for the children.

The court also ordered an advance of $75,000 for the applicant’s legal fees and expert costs to permit proper testing of the respondent’s financial evidence.

The applicant brought a motion to compel compliance with outstanding orders, for contempt, and to strike the respondent's Answer and Claim following chronic non-compliance with financial disclosure obligations.

The court found that the respondent had failed to purge his previous contempt and imposed a $300,000 penalty.

Due to the respondent's ongoing failure to comply with court orders and the Family Law Rules, the court struck his Answer and Claim, limiting his future participation in the proceedings, and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The appellant sought leave to appeal an order granting the respondent exclusive possession of the matrimonial home under s. 24(3)(f) of the Family Law Act based largely on hostile and threatening text messages sent during the parties’ separation.

The appellant argued the motion judge misapplied the law and that conflicting case law required more than text messages to establish “violence.” The court held that differing outcomes in other cases reflected discretionary factual determinations rather than conflicting legal principles.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the original order and held that intimidation or psychological abuse conveyed through text messages can constitute violence depending on the factual context.

Leave to appeal was therefore denied.

Following a family law motion in which the applicant obtained exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought full recovery alleging bad faith arising from the respondent’s failure to provide timely financial disclosure.

The court declined to find bad faith, holding that the evidentiary record did not establish an intent to deceive or conceal information.

Although the applicant was the successful party, the court found her conduct partially unreasonable for failing to serve an offer to settle and for serving key affidavit evidence only two days before the motion.

Costs were reduced accordingly and a partial recovery awarded.

The applicant sought interim spousal and child support, section 7 expenses, and a preservation order.

The parties lived a lavish lifestyle during the marriage, funded by a mix of income and capital.

Due to the respondent's inadequate financial disclosure, the court imputed an income of $250,000 for child support purposes and ordered combined interim support of $20,000 per month, recognizing the respondent would need to encroach on capital to pay it.

The request for a preservation order was dismissed to allow the respondent to utilize capital for support.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, and other relief, seeking to set aside the spousal support waiver in the parties' marriage contract.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the respondent husband's net worth grew to approximately $500 million.

The court found the marriage contract's support waiver to be unconscionable and severed it from the agreement.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $175,000 per month, retroactive to the date of separation, and to maintain life insurance and health benefits for the applicant.

The claim for interim child support was dismissed.

The applicant husband brought a motion seeking authorization to obtain a $350,000 line of credit secured against jointly owned matrimonial properties or, alternatively, an order compelling the respondent wife to cooperate with refinancing or the sale of the cottage property.

The husband sought the funds to complete the purchase of a new home with his partner.

The court held it lacked authority to compel a jointly owning spouse to encumber matrimonial property and found that granting the requested relief could prejudice the respondent’s property and support rights under the Family Law Act.

The court also declined to order partition and sale of the cottage prior to trial because doing so could prejudice unresolved equalization and support claims.

The motion and amended motion were dismissed, leaving issues regarding sale of the properties to the trial judge.

In a protracted family law proceeding involving disputes over alleged oral and written agreements made before and during the marriage, the applicant brought a motion seeking to revisit a prior ruling on the scope of questioning and pre‑trial disclosure.

The respondent alleged that agreements relating to renovation funding and a promissory note were invalid due to breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, and misrepresentation arising from the applicant’s failure to disclose an extramarital relationship.

The court held that limited additional questioning concerning the applicant’s extramarital relationships was appropriate and ordered the applicant to re‑attend for up to one hour to answer previously refused questions.

The court also confirmed the respondent’s entitlement to detailed accounting supporting the applicant’s financial claim and permitted inquiries relating to the value of an alleged 3% interest in a company involving the added party.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal fixed at $7,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST, as well as the costs of the motion below fixed at $5,000.

The applicant brought motions in a family law proceeding seeking to have the respondent found in contempt for failing to comply with prior court orders and to strike the respondent’s Answer for persistent disclosure failures.

The court reviewed a lengthy history of non-compliance with disclosure obligations, unpaid support, and failure to provide proof of compliance with prior orders regarding debts and financial disclosure.

While declining to immediately strike the Answer or make a contempt finding, the court granted an adjournment on strict conditions requiring proof of discharged loans, production of personal and corporate tax returns, updated financial disclosure, and payment toward support arrears.

The court warned that failure to comply with any of the terms could permit the applicant to move without notice to strike the respondent’s Answer.

The parties entered into a separation agreement requiring spousal support variations to be dealt with by arbitration.

After the husband stopped paying support, the wife filed the agreement for enforcement under s. 35 of the Family Law Act.

The husband then applied to the Superior Court to vary support and moved under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act to prevent the suspension of his driver's licence.

The motion judge held the court had jurisdiction to vary support because the wife sought enforcement under the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal, holding that neither the Family Law Act nor the Enforcement Act supersedes a valid domestic contract's exclusive arbitration provision.

On a motion for interim spousal support following a 24‑year marriage, the court considered how to determine income where the payor spouse’s earnings fluctuated significantly due to cyclical real estate development projects.

The applicant argued that support should be based on a multi‑year average exceeding $2 million annually, while the respondent claimed current income of approximately $214,000.

The court rejected both extremes, finding the unusually high income in certain years was anomalous but also concluding the claimed post‑separation income decline was not adequately supported.

Considering historical earnings patterns, capital gains history, and the respondent’s own spending levels, the court imputed income in the range of $700,000–$800,000 for interim purposes.

Interim spousal support was fixed at $25,000 per month and made retroactive to January 1, 2012.

Following motions in an ongoing family law proceeding, the parties made competing claims for costs relating to disputes about court‑ordered payments and a request to release funds held in counsel’s trust account.

The moving party argued he had achieved success and sought full recovery of substantial legal costs.

The responding party sought her own costs or, alternatively, that the issue be reserved to the trial judge.

The court held that it was not in a position to determine credibility or ultimate success between the parties on the available record.

Exercising discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and the Family Law Rules, the court reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge.

The applicant mother, who had sole custody of the child, sought to relocate to New Jersey to live with her new husband.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought custody.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that the move was in the child's best interests, noting the mother's role as primary caregiver and the bona fide nature of the relocation.

The court permitted the move, varied the access schedule to provide the father with less frequent but longer visits, and ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing support without imputing income to the mother for her temporary leave of absence.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act seeking a sealing order and anonymization of the parties and their children in a family law proceeding.

The motion was based on evidence that the children were emotionally vulnerable due to their parents’ separation and other recent traumatic events, and that the family’s prominence could attract media attention and expose the children to bullying or psychological harm.

Applying the Dagenais–Mentuck framework and authorities on open courts and confidentiality orders, the court found a serious risk of harm to a public interest—namely the protection of vulnerable children.

However, the court held that sealing the entire file was unnecessary.

Instead, it ordered that the parties and children be identified by initials and that only the portions of the file dealing with the marriage contract challenge, exclusive possession of the cottage, and custody and access be sealed.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant brought an ex parte motion alleging that the respondent had engaged in unauthorized surveillance and intercepted communications, seeking relief related to disclosure and preservation of evidence.

The court found that the motion did not meet the urgency threshold for a motion without notice under Rule 14(12) of the Family Law Rules because there was no evidence of ongoing surveillance and an investigation had already found no unauthorized devices.

However, the court determined that repeated unanswered requests for disclosure justified procedural intervention.

Leave was granted to bring the motion prior to a case conference, and the respondent was ordered to provide an affidavit of documents and preserve any electronic devices containing potential surveillance material.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and substantial retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $700,000 to the respondent father.

The court declined to determine custody on the limited interim record but confirmed that the child would primarily reside with the mother in the matrimonial home.

The request for exclusive possession was denied because the evidence did not establish that the father’s continued presence posed a threat to the child’s best interests under s. 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court assessed the father’s interim income at $325,000 and ordered table child support and high-range spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive to November 1, 2011.

Requests for section 7 expenses and further disclosure were deferred.