Thea Paula Herman

Following the breakdown of a 41‑year marriage, the parties sought competing equalization payments under the Family Law Act.

The court considered disputes regarding undisclosed bank accounts allegedly belonging to the respondent’s sister, artwork claimed as excluded property by the applicant, and other asset valuations.

Emails between the respondent and his sister were admitted despite allegations they were improperly obtained, as they were highly relevant and the respondent had misled the court about their existence.

The court rejected the respondent’s explanation that approximately $74,000 in bank accounts belonged to his sister and included those funds in his net family property.

Accepting the applicant’s net family property calculation, the court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $73,678.50, released trust funds to the applicant, secured payment against the matrimonial home, and granted a divorce.

Following a trial regarding variation of child and spousal support, both parties sought substantial costs awards.

Each argued they were the more successful party after the court ordered a modest reduction in support based on imputed income.

The court found neither party was clearly more successful and criticized both sides for conducting the litigation in a grossly disproportionate manner relative to the financial issues in dispute.

The court also considered the potential impact of a significant costs award on the custodial parent’s ability to support the child.

In the circumstances, the court concluded that fairness and proportionality required that each party bear their own costs.

The father appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order requiring him to remove internet postings that identified, directly or indirectly, his children as participants in a child protection proceeding, contrary to statutory publication restrictions.

He argued the judge erred in finding the postings identified the children, alleged procedural unfairness, claimed inability to remove the material, and alleged bias and factual errors.

The court held that the videoblogs, including tags and contextual references to family court and a children’s aid society, indirectly identified the children and their connection to protection proceedings.

The judge properly applied the statutory prohibition on publishing identifying information and committed no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed.

In matrimonial litigation, the respondent spouse brought a motion seeking extensive third‑party production relating to the estate and business affairs of the applicant’s deceased father, asserting that undisclosed gifts or anticipated inheritance were relevant to spousal support.

The court held that the request was based largely on speculation and suspicion and declined to order broad production from the estate, particularly where the inheritance had not yet been distributed and was subject to ongoing litigation.

The court ordered instead that the applicant provide an affidavit from the father’s accountant confirming any income received from the father or his businesses since separation.

On a cross‑motion, the applicant sought security for an anticipated equalization payment under s. 12 of the Family Law Act.

Finding a real risk of dissipation of assets due to inconsistent financial disclosures and substantial cash holdings, the court ordered the respondent to pay $500,000 into court pending trial.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking security for costs by preventing the sale, transfer, or encumbrance of a property registered in the applicant’s name.

The motion relied primarily on the applicant’s failure to pay a prior $750 costs order and concerns that the property might be transferred to a third party.

The court held that while Rule 24(13) of the Family Law Rules permits security for costs where a costs order remains unpaid, the amount outstanding was minimal and insufficient to justify the order.

The motion was also brought at the conclusion of trial, undermining the policy considerations typically underlying security for costs.

The court further noted that the requested order could affect the interests of a non‑party who contributed to the mortgage and expenses of the property.

The motion was dismissed and previous orders restricting dealings with the property were vacated.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a settlement arising from family and related civil proceedings concerning the parties’ jointly owned business.

The moving party had accepted an offer to settle shortly after a major customer issued a notice terminating its business relationship, which allegedly significantly reduced the value of the company.

The responding party argued that the offer was no longer capable of acceptance or that enforcement would be unfair and unconscionable due to the business’s diminished value and alleged bad faith.

The court held that the responding party affirmed the settlement through post‑acceptance conduct, including excluding the other party from the business and proceeding as if the agreement existed.

The settlement was therefore enforceable and not unjust or unconscionable in the circumstances.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking contribution from the respondent father toward children's special expenses under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines, as well as direct payment pending enforcement by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court considered whether various expenses—including extracurricular activities, swimming, skating, gymnastics, school lunches, and day camp—qualified as reasonable special expenses.

The court held that extracurricular activities and certain program costs were reasonable and consistent with the family's pre‑separation spending patterns, but declined to order contributions for school lunches and previously agreed summer camp costs.

The father was ordered to pay 80% of specified expenses and to contribute a monthly amount toward ongoing extracurricular costs pending trial.

Costs of the motion were awarded partially to the mother.