265 total
Summary judgment motion to dismiss spousal support denied; date of separation determined as February 20, 2019.
The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that the parties separated on August 5, 2018, and an order dismissing the responding party's claims for spousal support.
The court found that the parties separated on February 20, 2019, based on the objective evidence of their continued relationship and attempts at reconciliation.
The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding spousal support, holding that support issues should be determined at trial alongside property and equalization issues to avoid inconsistent findings and ensure a comprehensive analysis.
Wife awarded $97,523.88 in costs following successful motion for interim disbursements and spousal support.
The wife was largely successful on a motion for interim disbursements under the OBCA, temporary spousal support, and further financial disclosure.
Both parties sought costs of the motion.
The court found the wife was the successful party and that the husband's behavior regarding disclosure was unreasonable.
After considering the parties' offers to settle and the proportionality of the fees, the court awarded the wife costs of $97,523.88, representing 65% of her actual costs.
The costs were ordered to be paid equally by the husband personally and the corporations he controls.
Appeals of family arbitration award dismissed; children ordered to return to Ontario with mother retaining primary care.
The applicant mother and respondent father both appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial issues.
The mother appealed the arbitrator's decision requiring her to return with the children from Indiana to Ontario, arguing it failed to prioritize the children's best interests and the maximum contact principle.
The father appealed the arbitrator's decision granting the mother primary care and final decision-making authority upon their return to Ontario.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both appeals regarding the parenting issues, finding the arbitrator made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.
The court upheld the return to Ontario and the parenting arrangements, while reserving judgment on the financial issues.
Litigant in breach of multiple court orders must seek a stay before challenging court's jurisdiction.
The respondent brought a motion to set aside ten previous court orders, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because he was not properly served under the Hague Service Convention.
The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking to refuse the respondent an audience because he remained in continuous breach of those orders.
The court held that a litigant cannot ignore court orders and still demand an audience.
The court directed that the respondent must first bring a motion to stay the impugned orders; if successful, he may proceed with his jurisdiction motion, but if unsuccessful, he will be refused an audience until he complies.
Leave to appeal arbitration award denied; child's gap year suspended rather than terminated child support.
The applicant sought leave to appeal a family law arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator erred in law by finding that child support for his son was 'suspended' rather than 'terminated' during a gap year before university.
The applicant claimed that a termination of child support would have triggered a de novo review of spousal support under the parties' divorce order.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator made no error of law and correctly determined that the gap year did not terminate the child support obligation, thereby not triggering the spousal support review.
Wife awarded $250,000 in interim costs under OBCA to fund family and oppression litigation.
The moving party wife sought interim costs and disbursements of $500,000 to fund her family law and oppression remedy claims against the responding party husband, who controlled the family's closely-held corporations.
She also sought temporary spousal support and an order compelling the husband to answer undertakings and refusals from his questioning.
The court awarded $250,000 in interim costs under the OBCA as an advance against her shareholdings, finding her oppression claim had sufficient merit and she lacked liquid resources.
The court also ordered the husband to pay $3,000 per month in temporary spousal support to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes, and compelled him to answer the majority of the outstanding undertakings and refusals.
The court granted an anti-suit injunction restraining the husband from pursuing parallel divorce proceedings in Tennessee and enforced prior Ontario arbitration awards.
The applicant husband initiated parallel divorce proceedings in Tennessee, prompting the respondent wife to seek an anti-suit injunction and enforcement of prior Ontario arbitration awards.
The court found the Ontario arbitration awards valid and enforceable, rejecting the applicant's arguments to set them aside based on statutory provisions or alleged lack of consent.
The court also granted the anti-suit injunction, determining Ontario remained the appropriate forum with the closest connection to the divorce application and parties, and that no injustice would result from preventing the Tennessee action.
The court awarded the mother $7,500 in costs after finding she was the more successful party in a parenting motion, despite divided success and unreasonable behaviour.
The court addressed costs for a prior motion where the respondent father sought parenting relief.
The applicant mother was largely successful in resisting the father's requests regarding the children's access and communication, though the father obtained some relief regarding the location of access and the continuation of a prior consent order.
The mother sought substantial indemnity costs, while the father argued for no costs or a substantial reduction.
The court, applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, found the mother to be the more successful party overall, but noted her offer to settle lacked a "true element of compromise" and her unreasonable behaviour in failing to commence recommended counselling.
The court fixed costs at $7,500 for the mother, payable by the father upon specific future events.
The court granted the mother primary care on an interim basis, rejecting the father's strategic use of criminal charges to restrict access.
The Applicant brought an urgent motion seeking a temporary parenting order for her two young children, requesting primary care and specific access for the Respondent.
The Respondent opposed, raising concerns about the Applicant's mental health and parenting ability, initially seeking limited/supervised access, and later proposing a 50/50 schedule.
The court found the Respondent's credibility deeply flawed due to inconsistencies and strategic use of criminal charges.
The court granted the Applicant's request, returning the children to her primary care, citing the children's best interests, the pre-separation status quo, and the Respondent's failure to prioritize the children's needs post-separation.
The Applicant's request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed without prejudice.
Costs of $15,000 awarded to applicant after respondent acted in bad faith by breaching preservation order.
The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $20,361.76 following a motion where she obtained a preservation order and financial disclosure after the respondent breached a prior court order by surreptitiously refinancing a property.
The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by intentionally breaching the order to conceal information.
However, because success on the motion was divided and the applicant also acted somewhat unreasonably, the court awarded costs of $15,000 to the applicant, payable upon delayed terms due to the respondent's unemployment.
The court stayed an arbitration award requiring children to relocate to Ontario due to COVID-19 disruptions to specialized autism treatment.
The applicant mother appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial matters, specifically moving to stay the parenting provisions requiring the children's return to Ontario by May 31, 2020, and to admit fresh evidence.
The respondent father resisted the motion and sought to admit his own fresh evidence.
The court granted a stay of the parenting provisions until the completion of the appeal, finding a serious issue, irreparable harm to the children's best interests due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on specialized treatment and transition plans, and a balance of convenience favouring the stay.
The court also admitted relevant fresh evidence from both parties, adopting a flexible approach due to the children's best interests and risk of harm.
Spousal support Motion dismissed
The respondent sought an urgent hearing for his long motion to set aside ten prior court orders, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service under the Hague Service Convention.
He claimed urgency due to his precarious immigration status, inability to work, frozen bank accounts, revoked Canadian passport by FRO, and expiring health insurance amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by pre-existing medical conditions.
The applicant opposed the urgency request.
The court dismissed the respondent's motion for an urgent hearing, finding his urgent situation largely self-made due to his own delays, non-compliance with previous court orders, and failure to seek appropriate relief or return to Canada when able.
The court also noted the potential issue of attornment to jurisdiction.
Court granted a preservation order but denied a Mareva injunction following unauthorized property refinancing.
The applicant sought various urgent relief, including a certificate of pending litigation and a Mareva injunction, after the respondent breached a court order by refinancing a property without consent, increasing its debt load.
The court dismissed the certificate of pending litigation and Mareva injunction requests, finding the applicant failed to meet the high thresholds.
However, the court granted a preservation order against the property and certain funds, ordered specific disclosure, and allowed the applicant to inspect the property, emphasizing the importance of obeying court orders and protecting potential support and property claims.
A request for an urgent motion for police enforcement of a custody order during the COVID-19 shutdown was dismissed for lacking sufficient urgency.
The respondent sought an urgent motion for a police enforceability clause related to a consent custody and access order, alleging the applicant was violating the order.
The court dismissed the request, finding insufficient urgency to warrant a hearing during the court system's shutdown.
The court noted that children were not alleged to be in danger and that other remedies, such as make-up access time and costs sanctions, would be available once courts resumed normal operations.
The court cautioned the applicant that the COVID-19 pandemic did not excuse non-compliance with the existing order.
The court granted an adjournment to allow the respondent to file materials regarding child access, subject to establishing urgency.
The applicant sought interim relief, which was granted by an earlier endorsement.
The respondent failed to file responding materials by the deadline and requested an adjournment to allow newly retained counsel to finalize materials and argue the motion, particularly regarding access.
The applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing the motion was moot as the children had been returned to her.
The court acknowledged the respondent's delay but found it was not in a position to foreclose the respondent's access request without reviewing his sworn evidence.
The motion was adjourned for a further telephone conference to assess the urgency of the respondent's access terms.
Interim orders were made regarding primary care, communication through Our Family Wizard, and reservation of costs.
The court granted an urgent interim motion ordering the immediate return of two children to the applicant after the respondent unilaterally removed them during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The applicant sought urgent relief for the return of two children, alleging unlawful withholding by the respondent amidst the COVID-19 situation.
The court found the matter urgent and granted the applicant's interim motion, ordering the immediate return of the children to the applicant's care and control, maintaining the status quo.
The respondent's claim of a 50/50 parenting agreement was not supported by the evidence.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent and trustee.
The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decision of Hood J. dated October 31, 2019.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent and $5,000 to the trustee.
Applicant awarded $12,000 in costs reflecting overall success but divided outcomes on support and parenting.
Following motions for exclusive possession, parenting, and support, the parties were unable to agree on costs.
The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $35,000, while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success.
The court found the applicant was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on exclusive possession and the choice of assessor, though success was divided on parenting and support.
Accounting for the divided success and an unnecessary first attendance, the court awarded the applicant costs of $12,000.
The court dismissed a husband's motion to stay an arbitration award for spousal and child support pending leave to appeal.
The applicant husband sought to stay the child and spousal support provisions of an arbitration award pending leave to appeal.
The respondent wife opposed the stay.
The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test, finding that while a serious issue for appeal existed, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored a stay.
The court emphasized the arbitrator's findings of the applicant's financial non-disclosure and the "no automatic stay" policy for support orders.
The motion to stay was dismissed.
Interim disbursements of $200,000 ordered to fund legal fees and an expert valuation report.
The applicant in a high-conflict family law proceeding brought a motion for $425,000 in interim disbursements to fund legal fees and expert reports (valuation and income).
The respondent, a wealthy individual with complex financial affairs, conceded his ability to pay spousal support but disputed the necessity of the expert fees.
The court found that a valuation report was necessary to test the respondent's claim that his net family property was zero, but an income report was unnecessary given his concession on means.
The court ordered the respondent to pay $200,000 in interim disbursements and awarded $18,000 in costs to the applicant.
