Harold Niman

The applicant sought an interim 2-2-3 parenting schedule for their five-year-old daughter, N., following the parents' separation and the applicant's gender transition.

The respondent opposed, requesting a longer 'step-up' schedule.

The court considered N.'s best interests, noting her anxiety due to significant life changes and the respondent's role as primary caregiver.

The court ordered a phased 'step-up' parenting schedule, culminating in the applicant having parenting time 5 out of every 14 days, conditional on securing a suitable residence near the matrimonial home.

The court emphasized minimizing adverse impact on the child's well-being.

This motion concerned the interpretation of the term “usual and ordinary course of business” as it applied to corporate respondents in an interim preservation order.

The corporate respondents sought an expansive interpretation to allow significant financial transactions, including leveraging properties and transferring funds for a private mortgage lending business.

The applicant sought a narrow interpretation to preserve assets.

The court applied principles of judicial order interpretation, emphasizing context and purpose, and found the respondents' proposed interpretation would negate the preservation order's effect.

The court adopted a narrow definition, limiting “usual and ordinary course of business” to day-to-day operations and management, explicitly excluding large-scale asset encumbrance or intercorporate fund transfers for investment.

All other relief sought by the respondents was dismissed.

This is a motion to quash an appeal from a trial judge's costs order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario quashed the appeal, finding that leave to appeal was required for an appeal solely from a costs order under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, and the appellant had not sought leave.

The court also directed the distribution of security for costs previously posted by the appellant, awarding a portion to the respondent for prior appeal costs and the current motion costs, with the remainder returned to the appellant.

The applicant sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claim to set aside a cohabitation agreement.

The respondent argued the agreement should be set aside due to unconscionability, undue influence, duress, and inadequate financial disclosure, stemming from alleged coercive control during their 18-year common law relationship.

The court found that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial, particularly concerning the credibility of the parties and the nature of their relationship, which could not be resolved on a paper record.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

This is a costs decision following a motion to appoint a litigation guardian for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr. The plaintiffs, Kathy Ann Di Silvestro and Kandis Developments Limited, successfully moved to appoint an independent litigation guardian (Bryan Gelman) for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr., despite opposition from the defendants Laura Marie Di Silvestro and Matthew Dennis Di Silvestro, who proposed themselves or an accountant with prior involvement.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $80,000 in costs, with 50% to be paid by Anthony Di Silvestro Sr. and the other 50% jointly and severally by Laura Marie Di Silvestro and Matthew Dennis Di Silvestro, due to their pursuit of inappropriate LG candidates despite clear conflicts of interest.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to appoint an independent litigation guardian for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr., who was deemed incapable of managing his property and instructing counsel.

The defendants, including Tony Sr.'s daughter Laura, opposed, arguing Laura should remain as LG based on a Power of Attorney and that the plaintiffs needed to show misconduct.

The court found that Laura and Matthew had conflicts of interest due to allegations of undue influence over their parents' business and estate plans.

The court dismissed Laura's claim that her prior self-appointment as LG shifted the burden to the plaintiffs to prove misconduct.

Applying the 'best interests test' and 'indifference' principle from Gronnerud, the court ruled that neither Laura, Matthew, nor a family-connected accountant (Mr. Mastroluisi) were suitable due to potential conflicts.

The court appointed Bryan Gelman, an independent insolvency trustee, as the litigation guardian for Tony Sr., subject to approval of terms.

The applicant mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the respondent father's pleadings and impose a daily penalty of $3,500 for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent in breach of numerous obligations, including the failure to deliver an income and business valuation report.

The court ordered that the respondent's pleadings (except regarding parenting) would be struck if he failed to deliver the required reports by a final deadline.

However, the court dismissed the request for a daily monetary penalty, holding that such a penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 1(8) absent a formal finding of civil contempt under Rule 31.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of Mr. Fotak's appeal and motion.

Ms. Capone sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal, applying Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules and considering reasonableness and proportionality, awarded Ms. Capone global costs of $15,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, retroactive support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed spousal support, relying on a marriage contract that waived it.

The court found a serious triable issue regarding whether the marriage contract complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act, allowing an interim spousal support award of $25,500 per month and child support of $9,918 per month.

The court deferred the issue of retroactive support to trial but granted the applicant's request to order the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing a motion to stay ten previous family law orders, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service under the Hague Service Convention.

The appellant also brought a motion to quash a case management judge's decision regarding the proper and timely service of responding appeal materials.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that service was proper under the Convention and Ontario rules, and that the appellant had attorned to the court's jurisdiction through participation in the proceedings.

The court also found no error in the refusal to grant a stay, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, and dismissed the motion to quash the case management judge's decision.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking an order finding the Respondent in breach of prior court orders related to disclosure and timetables, requesting a financial penalty for ongoing non-compliance, and a restraining order.

The court found the Respondent had breached disclosure orders from Justices Kiteley and Hood regarding an ISN file, a Bank of Nova Scotia loan, Mr. Bisceglia's file, and an EquiGenesis Report.

The court ordered a daily financial penalty of $2,500 for each day disclosure remains outstanding, effective April 1, 2022.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed.

The applicant appealed an arbitration award that granted summary judgment to the respondent, dismissing her claims to set aside two domestic contracts.

The applicant argued the contracts should be set aside due to financial non-disclosure, lack of understanding, and duress.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator made palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law by conflating the steps of the summary judgment test, assessing credibility on a conflicting written record without oral evidence, and failing to properly weigh the respondent's non-disclosure of a significant family trust.

The summary judgment was set aside and the matter was remitted to a new arbitrator for a full hearing.

The Respondent father moved to set aside Minutes of Settlement (MOS), arguing the Applicant mother fundamentally breached them by commencing a new defamation proceeding in Iran the day after signing the MOS, which was intended to consolidate all litigation.

The Applicant mother cross-moved to enforce the MOS and for the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court found that the Applicant's failure to disclose and refusal to withdraw the Iranian defamation claim constituted a fundamental breach of the MOS, as the agreement's core purpose was to terminate all multi-jurisdictional litigation arising from the marriage breakdown in favour of an alternative dispute resolution process in Ontario.

The court set aside the MOS, dismissed the Applicant's cross-motion, and declined to address the question of jurisdiction at that stage.

The respondent father brought a motion to stay ten prior court orders dating back to 2013, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because he was not properly served in New York under the Hague Service Convention.

The court found that the Hague Service Convention applied, but that the respondent was properly served by FedEx as permitted by Ontario law and the Convention's postal channel provisions.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to grant a stay under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the respondent failed the RJR-MacDonald test and that staying the orders would cause immense prejudice to the applicant mother, who was owed over $2.5 million in support arrears.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions for an interim parenting schedule for their 13-year-old child.

The mother sought an equal shared parenting schedule, while the father sought a schedule giving the mother approximately 35% of parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's recent ADHD and anxiety diagnoses, as well as the mother's return to Toronto from Rhode Island to support the child.

Considering the child's expressed preference for more time with the mother and the need for stability, the court ordered an interim week-about shared parenting schedule.

The applicant father sought to review and terminate spousal support and adjust child support pursuant to a 2012 Separation Agreement.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in support to 2013, alleging the father hid income from the sale of his business.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father and denied the retroactive claim due to the mother's failure to give effective notice.

The court imputed $390,000 in annual income to the mother, finding she was intentionally underemployed and failed to utilize her substantial investment portfolio to generate income, despite her obligations under the Separation Agreement.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate after one additional year, and child support was adjusted prospectively based on the parties' current incomes.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders in a high-net-worth family law proceeding.

The parties separated after a traditional marriage where the applicant was the primary caregiver and the respondent was an entrepreneur with complex, international business interests.

The respondent failed to provide meaningful financial disclosure, claiming his finances were complex and he had lost everything, despite evidence of lavish spending.

The court ordered the respondent to provide comprehensive financial disclosure and serve expert valuation reports within 20 days.

The court also appointed an independent supervising solicitor to review quarantined documents found in the matrimonial home for relevance and privilege.

Given the respondent's lack of disclosure and unilateral financial actions, the court granted a preservation order restraining him from depleting his assets, subject to ordinary business exceptions.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the children, noting the respondent's frequent travel and lack of day-to-day involvement.

Finally, the court imputed an income of $1,200,000 to the respondent and ordered him to pay a lump sum of $1,700,000 for interim child and spousal support, citing the real risk of non-payment of periodic support.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and interim disbursements following the breakdown of a 13-year relationship.

The parties enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the applicant was financially dependent on the respondent.

The court awarded interim spousal support of $72,000 per month, finding the applicant established a reasonable case based on the respondent's significant wealth and the parties' standard of living.

The court also awarded $200,000 in interim disbursements to level the playing field in the high-conflict litigation, noting the funds were necessary to pay legal and expert professionals.

The applicant's former lawyer brought a motion in family court for a charging order against a property for unpaid legal fees of approximately $664,323.

The property had been transferred to the respondent husband pursuant to family law minutes of settlement.

The court held that while the motion should ideally have been brought in the related civil action commenced by the lawyer, the family court had jurisdiction and would decide the motion to save resources.

The court granted the charging order, finding the lawyer was instrumental in preserving equity in the property and that there was a triable issue regarding whether the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance, with quantification to be determined in the civil action.

Following the separation of a common-law couple, a dispute arose over the ownership of their dog.

The applicant, who had adopted the dog, paid for most of its expenses, and was listed as the owner on all documentation, sought a declaration of ownership and the return of the dog after the respondent took the dog from the street.

The respondent claimed joint ownership or, alternatively, a constructive trust and a shared residential schedule.

The court found that the applicant was the sole lawful owner based on financial contributions, documentation, and primary caregiving, and declined to impose a constructive trust or shared custody arrangement for policy reasons.