Hayley Cairns

The applicant sought an order requiring the respondent to disclose her Robinson Huron Treaty settlement particulars, 2025 employment income particulars, and other employment benefits for 2023–2025.

The respondent opposed disclosure of the settlement particulars, citing legal and cultural reasons, but provided other requested financial information.

The court found that the respondent had complied with her disclosure obligations regarding income and benefits, and that the settlement funds were not “income” under the Child Support Guidelines nor relevant to her ongoing means, as they had been spent on legal fees.

The motion for further disclosure was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order and a trial decision upholding a separation agreement.

The motion judge had found the agreement was signed but directed a trial on whether an escrow condition requiring corporate counsel's approval was met.

The trial judge found the appellant waived the condition by her conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was out of time to appeal the motion judge's order and that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding waiver by conduct.

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 and respondent, former partners, both sought the sale of their jointly owned property.

While agreeing on the sale, they disputed the distribution of net proceeds, with the respondent claiming sole beneficial ownership or a constructive trust due to her significantly larger financial and labour contributions.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for a resulting trust but found unjust enrichment by the applicant.

The court ordered that after the respondent is reimbursed for her downpayment and renovation costs, the remaining net proceeds be divided 17% to the applicant and 83% to the respondent, reflecting their respective financial contributions to the mortgage and carrying costs.

The Respondent brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned investment property.

The Applicant opposed the sale, arguing it was malicious, vexatious, and oppressive, and that she wished to retain the property as an income source given the Respondent's early retirement.

The court found that a joint tenant has a prima facie right to partition or sale under the Partition Act, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient reason to deny the sale, as it was an inevitable outcome at trial and not a matrimonial home.

The motion for sale was granted, with the Applicant's share of net proceeds to be released and the Respondent's share held in trust.

The court also addressed costs and expressed concerns about the ongoing litigation and resource imbalance between the parties.

The respondent, Rachel Bilah Medjuck, brought a motion seeking a de novo order for financial disclosure from the applicant, Akiva Medjuck, despite an interim arbitral award that had declined such disclosure.

Alternatively, she sought leave to appeal the interim arbitral award.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to make a de novo order for financial disclosure given the existing mediation/arbitration agreement between the parties.

The court also found that the arbitrator made no errors in law, and the questions raised for appeal were not pure questions of law, thus denying leave to appeal the interim arbitral award.

Both of the respondent's motions were dismissed.

The Applicant Wife brought a motion seeking spousal and child support, interim disbursements, and costs.

The parties agreed on entitlement to compensatory spousal and child support, disputing only the quantum.

The court determined the Respondent's income for support purposes, including bonuses and benefits, and found the Applicant entitled to share in post-separation income increases.

The court ordered uncharacterized interim support of $60,000 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2022, and dismissed the motion for interim disbursements, finding the Applicant would have sufficient funds from the retroactive support.

The applicant accepted the respondent's offer to settle parenting issues, which included a term that the applicant pay costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent subsequently claimed over $120,000 in costs.

The court analyzed the principles of full indemnity costs in family law, noting that reasonableness, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the paying party still apply.

The court awarded the respondent $49,000 in costs, discounting the claim due to a lack of docket detail, the inclusion of pre-litigation fees, and fees incurred after the offer was accepted.

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 parties separated after eight years of marriage and have one child with Type 1 diabetes.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief regarding parenting, support, and the matrimonial home.

The court ordered joint decision-making and a graduated parenting schedule leading to equal time.

For support purposes, the court imputed an income of $25,000 to the applicant and determined the respondent's income at $1,192,666 based on a three-year average, excluding certain non-recurring amounts.

The court ordered interim child and spousal support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and an advance of $120,000 to the applicant for interim disbursements.

Following a lengthy family law trial where both parties experienced divided success, the applicant sought costs on the basis of the respondent's alleged bad faith and failure to disclose.

The respondent sought reimbursement of a $140,000 interim disbursement payment.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' offers to settle and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The court concluded that the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and, given the divided success and the offers to settle, ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The respondent's request for reimbursement was also denied.

Following a trial judgment that terminated child support for the parties' two children, the court determined the ongoing quantum of spousal support.

The parties' separation agreement provided for a combined unallocated support payment of $10,000 net per month.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $11,000 gross per month in spousal support effective January 1, 2018, and dismissed the respondent's request for a retroactive order and reimbursement of alleged overpayments.

The applicant sought to set aside a 2010 Separation Agreement, alleging the respondent failed to disclose significant corporate assets and that she signed under duress.

Alternatively, she sought to set aside the support provisions.

The respondent sought to uphold the agreement but requested extensive variations to support, including retroactive termination of child support and imputation of income to the applicant.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the agreement, finding the non-disclosure was not significant in the context of the negotiations and there was no duress.

The court also dismissed most of the respondent's variation requests due to a lack of a material change in circumstances, but granted the termination of child support for the two adult children who no longer lived with the applicant.