H. Niman

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a parenting order, seeking interim primary residence and supervised parenting time for the mother, following an incident in Florida where the mother was arrested for child neglect due to severe intoxication.

The mother sought to maintain the status quo and requested a section 30 assessment.

The court struck several exhibits from the mother's affidavits, including letters from a nurse practitioner and psychiatrist, for failing to comply with expert evidence rules.

The court found a material change in circumstances and granted the father interim primary residence.

The court declined to order supervised parenting time but required the mother to use Soberlink alcohol monitoring during her parenting time.

The father's child support obligations were suspended, and the mother's request for a section 30 assessment was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased parenting time with the parties' 7-year-old child pending a 21-day trial.

The father sought equal time or, alternatively, an additional evening.

A section 30 assessment report raised concerns about the mother's ability to support the child's relationship with the father and noted the child's clear alignment with the mother.

The court found that leaving the status quo in place pending trial would jeopardize the child's relationship with the father.

The court granted the motion in part, awarding the father additional overnights but declining to order equal time on an interim basis.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve multi-jurisdictional family litigation by consolidating their dispute into an alternative dispute resolution process in Ontario.

The day after signing, the moving party was served with a new defamation proceeding commenced by the responding party in Iran.

The moving party sought to set aside the Minutes of Settlement, arguing the new proceeding was a fundamental breach.

The court found that the responding party's failure to disclose and withdraw the defamation claim constituted a fundamental breach of an implied term to end all related litigation.

The court allowed the motion, set aside the Minutes of Settlement, but declined to award damages or address jurisdiction.

The respondent brought a motion for the release of the net proceeds of sale of two jointly owned properties.

The applicant opposed the full release, seeking to have a portion held in trust to secure her equalization claim, and brought a cross-motion for the partition and sale of a third property.

The court ordered a partial release of the proceeds, holding $778,000 in trust to secure the applicant's equalization claim, finding she had established a strong claim and a risk of dissipation.

The court also granted the cross-motion for the partition and sale of the third property, finding no compelling reason to delay the sale until trial.

At a case conference, the applicant father sought a substantive order for extended overnight summer parenting time with his two daughters at a resort.

The respondent mother opposed the request, proposing a more limited schedule.

The court found that limited and exceptional circumstances existed to make a substantive order at a case conference.

Considering the strained relationship between the father and the children, and the recommendations of the experts, the court ordered daily parenting time from 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. between August 13 and August 27, without overnights.

The court also ordered the parties to proceed with family counselling.

The applicant sought spousal support after the end of a 14-year relationship with the wealthy respondent.

The respondent argued they were not spouses because they maintained separate residences in Toronto.

The court found that the parties lived together in a conjugal relationship, noting they spent summers together at a cottage, wintered in Florida, and the respondent treated the applicant as his wife and financially supported her.

The court awarded the applicant indefinite spousal support of $53,077 per month and retroactive support of $421,795.12, finding a strong pattern of economic dependency.

Following a motion for interim disbursements and other relief, the court ruled on outstanding disclosure and costs.

The respondent was ordered to produce various financial documents, including tax returns from 2010 to 2014, to assist in determining income for support purposes.

The applicant sought over $90,000 in costs for the motion.

Finding mixed success but noting the applicant was more successful on the primary issue of interim disbursements, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $15,000.

Following dismissal of a support payor’s motion seeking to stay child and spousal support obligations, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court confirmed the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and considered factors including the parties’ conduct, proportionality of fees, and the impact of an unaccepted offer to settle.

Although the successful party sought full indemnity costs exceeding $24,000, the court found certain billings duplicative and limited the effect of the offer to settle to the period after its delivery.

The court fixed costs at $9,000 payable by the unsuccessful party in monthly installments.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary access to the parties’ four‑year‑old child pending completion of a s. 30 parenting assessment.

The respondent mother sought supervised access relying in part on a pediatrician’s letter suggesting the child may have experienced trauma during prior visits.

The court found the purported expert opinion unreliable because it was based largely on the mother’s subjective account and incomplete information without input from the father.

Finding no credible evidence of safety concerns and noting previous orders granting unsupervised access, the court ordered a structured temporary access schedule including weekday visits and gradually expanding overnight access, while directing that questioning on affidavits be completed.

Following a motion to strike pleadings for failure to pay spousal and child support arrears, the court determined costs of the motion.

The applicant argued entitlement to full indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and alleged bad faith conduct by the respondent.

The court held that the offer to settle did not trigger mandatory full indemnity costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because the result was not as favourable as the offer.

However, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith by deliberately breaching court orders, refusing to pay support despite having the means to do so, and advancing previously decided arguments.

Pursuant to Rule 24(8), the respondent was ordered to pay full indemnity costs of the motion, reduced slightly to reflect unnecessary duplication of counsel attendance.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to pay spousal and child support arrears totaling over $140,000, as well as private school fees.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to characterize prior payments as tax-deductible spousal support.

The court applied the three-part test for striking pleadings and found the respondent in continuous breach of court orders without exceptional circumstances to excuse the default.

The court ordered the respondent's pleadings struck unless all arrears are paid within 20 days.

The court also ordered the parties to equally share ongoing private school and assessor fees, and dismissed the respondent's motion regarding tax characterization, reserving that issue for trial.

The applicant husband sought to set aside six separation agreements made between 1999 and 2007, claiming he was coerced and controlled by the respondent wife.

He also sought spousal support and an equalization payment.

The court applied the Miglin framework and found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of vulnerability or that the agreements were inconsistent with the Divorce Act.

The court concluded the agreements fell within the range of normative outcomes and dismissed the application.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer and Claim and to find him in contempt for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and costs.

The respondent argued he had purged his contempt to the extent possible, citing health issues, lack of funds, and reliance on third parties.

The court found the respondent had not met his obligations and had provided inadequate excuses.

However, noting some recent progress and the respondent's claim that his health issues had resolved, the court adjourned the motion to strike and the contempt motion, giving the respondent one final opportunity to comply with a strict timetable for disclosure and payment of costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court previously denied the motion, allowing the respondent father to remain in the home.

The mother renewed her motion, providing evidence of vitriolic and threatening text messages sent by the father.

The court found that the text messages constituted 'violence' under section 24(3)(f) of the Family Law Act, as they were intended to intimidate and caused psychological harm.

Given the violence and the risk of exposing the child to adult conflict, the court granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court determined costs following family law motion proceedings.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The issues were significant but the motions were brief, each lasting only a few hours.

As the applicant was largely successful and had made relevant settlement offers, the court awarded costs for two motion attendances and related questioning.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

On a motion and cross-motion in a long-term marriage, the applicant sought interim spousal support, arrears, disclosure orders, and preservation of property.

The respondent disputed the amount of interim support and sought to sever the divorce from corollary issues.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the respondent’s true available income including grossed-up corporate earnings, the court fixed interim spousal support at $25,187 per month.

Retroactive support was ordered from January 1, 2012, and disclosure obligations were imposed on the respondent.

The court also granted an order preventing depletion of property and severed the divorce from the remaining issues.

In a family law proceeding following separation, the applicant brought a motion for contempt alleging the respondent breached court orders prohibiting communication, requiring mortgage payments, and mandating financial disclosure.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found the respondent deliberately and wilfully breached a non‑communication order by contacting the applicant directly despite clear court orders.

The court also found the respondent in breach of orders requiring mortgage payments and financial disclosure but declined to make additional findings of contempt for those breaches.

The respondent was ordered to attend court to purge his contempt and was directed to comply with outstanding disclosure and mortgage obligations.