Herschel I. Fogelman

The parties separated after 16 years of marriage.

The father was criminally charged and subsequently breached a temporary court order requiring him to maintain the family's financial status quo.

On the mother's motion for financial relief, the court found the father in breach of the prior order and directed the sale of the matrimonial home.

To remedy the breach and provide support, the court ordered the father to pay $357,180 in lump sum retroactive child and spousal support, $30,000 in costs for an abandoned parenting motion, and $150,000 in interim disbursements, all to be paid from his share of the home's net sale proceeds.

The applicant sought to vary an interim order requiring her to hold $150,000 in trust as security for the respondents' claims.

The applicant also sought release of funds from the sale of two properties: an investment property (Donway) and a pre-construction condominium (Elgin).

The respondents brought cross-motions for disclosure and compliance with prior court orders.

The court found that the applicant had not fully complied with prior orders from Justice Pinto and Justice Kraft regarding the trust funds.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion and granted the respondents' requests for disclosure and compliance orders.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs to both respondents.

This decision addresses a motion by Lan Ling to be added as a party to ongoing family law proceedings between Wentong (Wendy) Liu and her spouse, Yilan Yuan.

Lan, the mother of Yuan, sought to consolidate her civil trust claim with the family law application, arguing that certain assets held by Yuan were in trust for her and her husband, Ming.

The court granted consolidation of the civil and family proceedings, permitted Lan to pursue trust claims over specified assets, and required her to provide financial disclosure.

The court declined to allow Lan to act as litigation guardian for Ming due to insufficient evidence of his incapacity and a potential conflict of interest.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party.

The Applicant mother sought prospective and retroactive child support for the parties' child and to terminate or vary a preservation order on the former matrimonial home.

The Respondent father opposed retroactive support prior to August 2023 and the termination of the preservation order.

The court ordered temporary retroactive child support from January 1, 2023, and varied the preservation order to allow it to be registered against another property owned by the Mother, rather than terminating it.

The issue of child support from separation to December 31, 2022, was reserved for trial.

The Co-Respondents, Reza Dadras and Nasrin Hakimi (the "Parents-in-law"), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims made against them by the Applicant, Hossein Mehdian.

Hossein sought, among other things, a declaration of a 50% beneficial interest in a property (the "BP Property") held by the Parents-in-law, alleging unjust enrichment and seeking a constructive or resulting trust based on his and Katayoun's (his spouse and the Parents-in-law's daughter) monetary and non-monetary contributions.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, particularly due to the lack of evidence from Katayoun and the need for credibility assessments regarding the alleged contributions and mutual understanding.

However, the court granted the Parents-in-law's preliminary motion to strike certain inflammatory paragraphs from Hossein's Application and granted leave for Hossein to withdraw an erroneous spousal support claim against the Parents-in-law.

The court also addressed the admissibility of late-disclosed documents and the limitation period defence, finding both raised issues for trial.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and related relief.

The parties, married for over 28 years, presented conflicting narratives regarding the wife's financial contributions.

The court found the wife had a prima facie entitlement to support and imputed an income of $3,000 per month to her for a housing benefit received from her parents.

Based on the husband's average annual income of $586,333, the court ordered him to pay $19,839 per month in interim spousal support.

The issue of retroactive support was left for trial, and the wife was made responsible for the mortgage and line of credit on the Hillcrest Property, while the husband was ordered to pay joint Visa balances and maintain the wife on his health plan.

The mother brought a motion requesting the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to represent the parties' 13-year-old child in an ongoing high-conflict parenting dispute.

The father opposed the appointment, arguing it would force the child into the middle of the conflict, and sought to cross-examine the author of a Voice of the Child report on the basis of undue influence.

The court granted the motion, finding that the child had a right to have his views and preferences heard and that legal representation was in his best interests, particularly given the father's intention to challenge the reliability of the child's expressed views.

The applicant's motion for an advance equalization payment or interim costs was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $11,735.55 on a full recovery basis or $7,895.87 on a partial recovery basis.

The applicant argued costs should be left to the trial judge and cited limited ability to pay.

The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable for bringing the same motion that had been previously dismissed without correcting evidentiary deficiencies.

The respondent had also made a valid offer to settle.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $8,500 to the respondent.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of both an appeal and a cross-appeal.

The respondent sought $38,580 in costs for the appeal, while the appellant proposed $7,500.

The court, considering the issues raised and the limited resources of the parties, awarded the respondent $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant wife sought leave to bring a motion for an advance equalization payment of $100,000 or interim disbursements of $100,000 to fund expert reports and legal fees.

A nearly identical motion had been dismissed by another judge six weeks prior due to a deficient evidentiary record.

The court found that the wife failed to meet the higher burden of showing a change in circumstances or providing the necessary factual foundation to support the revived motion.

The motion for leave was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial decision regarding spousal support quantum and duration, arguing the trial judge erred by deviating from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) and double-counting her new partner's contributions.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

The court affirmed the trial judge's discretion in determining spousal support, noting that SSAGs are advisory and re-partnering is a valid reason for deviation.

It also upheld the costs award, reiterating the high standard for appellate intervention in discretionary costs decisions.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking an order that the respondent husband provide dental practice appraisals to their jointly retained valuation expert, and for a $100,000 advance equalization payment or interim costs.

The court granted the request for the appraisals, finding the expert's request reasonable and necessary to properly value the respondent's dental practices.

However, the court dismissed the request for a further advance equalization payment, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic chance that the advance would not exceed the ultimate equalization amount, and failed to provide sufficient evidence of her need for the funds or the estimated future litigation costs.

The wife sought costs following her success on two motions, one brought by the husband for disclosure and one brought by the wife for temporary support and release of funds.

The court found the wife was presumptively entitled to costs and had met the criteria under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for one of her offers to settle.

The court also found the husband acted in bad faith by failing to comply with the order to release funds forthwith.

The court awarded the wife costs in the amount of $22,906.79, to be paid from the husband's share of the net proceeds of sale held in trust.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion without notice for a non-dissipation order freezing the respondent husband's assets and for the release of trust funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the request for a non-dissipation order, noting that most of the alleged deceptive financial conduct pre-dated a September 2019 settlement conference and there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking relief.

The court set a timetable for the parties to file materials regarding the release of the trust funds, which will be determined in writing.

The applicant (wife) brought an urgent motion for a case conference to address support and disclosure issues.

The respondent (father) disputed the urgency and the applicant's entitlement to spousal support, arguing that full disclosure and questioning should precede any support determination.

The court found the matter urgent, noting the respondent's unexplained change in position regarding expert evidence and potential tactical delay.

The motion for a case conference was granted, with specific directions for the conference, including requirements for disclosure schedules, offers to settle temporary support, and preparation for the appointment of an expert to assess the father's support income and business interests.

The parties, married for 25 years and separated for 12, sought a final determination on spousal support.

The Applicant, a full-time homemaker during the marriage, sought indefinite spousal support and a lump sum for post-separation debts.

The Respondent, a civil engineer, argued for termination or reduction of support, citing the Applicant's lengthy cohabitation with a new partner of substantial wealth and his own significant contributions to child and home care during the marriage.

The court found the Applicant entitled to both need-based and compensatory spousal support, acknowledging her economic detriment and health issues.

However, the court also recognized the impact of her re-partnering on the quantum and duration of support.

The court adjusted the Respondent's income for support purposes, including personal expenses paid by his corporation, but declined to attribute corporate pre-tax income.

Spousal support was awarded for a time-limited period, decreasing over time, and a lump sum was granted to the Applicant for specific post-separation debts.

The applicant wife sought extensive financial disclosure and questioning of the respondent husband's father, Marcel Aitoro (a non-party), regarding several companies and properties.

The wife alleged significant intertwining of business and personal financial affairs between the husband and Marcel, suggesting assets were being shielded and income diverted.

Marcel and the husband opposed, citing privacy and proportionality.

The court dismissed a preliminary objection by the husband regarding the wife's affidavit.

Applying Family Law Rules 19(11) and 20(5), and considering the importance of disclosure in family law, the court ordered Marcel to provide specific financial disclosure related to FSC (a company with intertwined business activities with the husband), redacted ledgers from Assissi (Marcel's holding company) concerning realty and husband's expenses, and redacted credit card statements used by the husband.

Questioning of Marcel was reserved pending compliance with the disclosure order.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses the management of two intertwined proceedings: a family law application (divorce, spousal support, equalization, trust claims) and a guardianship proceeding.

The court prioritized the family law application, scheduling a combined settlement and trial management conference.

It also addressed disclosure issues, compliance with previous orders (costs, property listing), and clarified the procedural nature of prior decisions.

The court declined to set a hearing date for the guardianship application at this time.

This endorsement addresses two motions and sets directions for a future case conference in two related proceedings: a family law application (FS-15-406705) and a guardianship proceeding (FS-17-21568).

The court reserved decision on the motions and outlined issues for the upcoming case conference, including the impact of the "deemed undertaking" rule on evidence and productions, and status reports on disclosure and mediation.

Counsel were directed to collaborate on a proposed order regarding the deemed undertaking rule.

The respondent, Joanne Chuvalo, brought a motion under Family Law Rule 25(19)(b) to correct an order declaring George Chuvalo lacked capacity to reconcile, seeking to change its designation from "temporary" to "final." The court dismissed the motion, finding that the original order was correctly designated as "temporary" because capacity is fluid and the order did not finally dispose of all substantive issues in the ongoing divorce application.

The court clarified the distinction between temporary and final orders, applying the "classic test" that an order is interlocutory if the merits of the case remain to be determined.

The court also found no common intention between counsel to designate the order as "final" which is a requirement for correcting a mistake under Rule 25(19)(b).

Costs were awarded to the Public Guardian and Trustee.