Howard Jacob Feldman

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for interim parenting time with her seven-year-old daughter.

The mother was subject to criminal bail conditions prohibiting her from contacting or being within 500 metres of the child due to numerous criminal charges, including dangerous driving and assault.

The court declined to make an interim parenting order that conflicted with the criminal release orders, finding it inappropriate to make an order 'subject to bail variation'.

The court granted consent orders maintaining the child's schooling and medical care, and ordered a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The parties in a family law proceeding engaged in a 'war' of Form 14B motions, repeatedly breaching the rule that such motions are reserved for procedural, uncomplicated, or unopposed matters.

After declining to hear the applicant's opposed 14B motion the previous day, the court received another opposed 14B motion from the respondent seeking substantive relief.

The court declined to hear the respondent's motion and, citing the need to save time and expense, ordered pursuant to subrule 14(21) of the Family Law Rules that neither party may bring further 14B motions unless they strictly comply with subrule 14(10).

The court determined costs following pre-trial motions where both parties sought numerous heads of relief.

The court found the Applicant primarily responsible for the excessive and disproportionate time and resources spent due to consistently unreasonable positions and refusal to compromise.

The Respondent was deemed the successful party on key issues, including the sale of the matrimonial home and disclosure, and bettered their offers to settle.

Despite the Respondent seeking "full recovery" costs, the court applied principles of proportionality and reasonableness, noting the Respondent also raised an inordinate number of issues.

The Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent $35,000 plus HST for a total of $39,550.

The parties, separated since 2016, brought competing motions for interim relief involving over 20 issues.

The primary issue was the respondent's motion to compel the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home pursuant to the Partition Act and a prior interim separation agreement.

The applicant opposed the sale, arguing market conditions were poor and a sale would prejudice her family law claims.

The court granted the order for sale, finding the applicant asserted no possessory interest in the home and the respondent had sufficient other assets to satisfy any potential equalization or trust claims.

Both parties' requests for the appointment of a joint expert were dismissed due to unworkable mandates.

The applicant's requests for further disclosure and additional life insurance were also dismissed, as was the respondent's request for a restraining order.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to change the children's school from Sloane Public School to Birch Cliff Heights Public School due to concerns about COVID-19, as Sloane was located in a high-risk neighbourhood.

The parties had joint custody and had previously agreed the children would attend Sloane.

The court declined to take judicial notice of several specific medical and statistical assertions regarding COVID-19 and dismissed the applicant's motion to introduce fresh evidence.

Applying the best interests of the child test for changing schools and educational plans during a pandemic, the court found the applicant failed to provide compelling and cogent evidence that a change of schools was warranted.

The motion was dismissed, and the children were ordered to continue attending Sloane.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought urgent motions regarding parenting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The primary unresolved issues were whether the applicant's adult daughter, an ICU nurse, should self-isolate from the children during parenting time, and where the children should reside if a household member exhibited COVID-19 symptoms.

The court ruled that the adult daughter did not need to self-isolate, emphasizing adherence to public health protocols and the lack of medical evidence supporting isolation.

For the second issue, the court directed parents to seek medical advice and follow Canada Public Health Protocols.

The applicant sought to vary a consent order regarding custody, access, and child support for two children, requesting equal time-sharing and divided decision-making.

The respondent opposed any changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances, primarily due to the applicant's significantly improved mental health and the children's expressed wishes for more time with their mother.

Applying the 'best interests of the child' test, the court granted the variation, ordering joint custody with equal time-sharing and divided decision-making authority for medical, dental, and educational matters.

Child support was reserved for further agreement or hearing.

The Applicant and Respondent brought motions for interim custody, access, and support.

The court addressed the temporary parenting plan, child support, and spousal support.

The parties had been living in a "nested" home post-separation, which led to significant conflict and negative impact on the children.

The court adopted a modified version of the Applicant's proposed parenting plan, which allocated more parenting time to the Applicant, and ordered the Respondent to attend counselling with a professional parenting specialist to improve his relationship with the children.

Child support was ordered based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and interim spousal support was ordered at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also made consent orders regarding the sale of the matrimonial home and division of proceeds.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant father's motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and access.

The father sought to vary non-variable terms restricting him from taking the children out of Ontario, citing his permanent relocation to Washington DC and marriage as material changes.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz test and found no material change in circumstances that was unforeseen at the time of the original order.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the father's motion to change.

A father sought to change a consent custody and access order regarding his son, seeking sole custody and restricting the mother's access.

The parents had moved to Barcelona, Spain with their son to attend a prestigious football school.

The mother subsequently refused to return to Spain and withheld the child.

The father brought motions in both Ontario and Spain.

The court determined that Ontario lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion to change, as the child was habitually resident in Spain.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and stayed the Ontario motion, reverting to the original consent order of February 2013 as a holding order pending resolution in Spain.

The applicant sought a final order enforcing a settlement reached during a mid-trial conference.

The respondent, whose pleadings had previously been struck for flagrant and repeated breaches of court orders, attempted to resile from the settlement, arguing she lacked legal advice and that material terms were missing.

The court reviewed the extensive litigation history, noted the respondent's 'scorched earth' litigation conduct, and found that she had clearly understood and agreed to the settlement terms in court.

The court granted the final order incorporating the settlement, emphasizing the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to deal with cases justly and efficiently.

The applicant sought a final determination of issues allegedly resolved during a mid-trial conference.

The respondent, whose pleadings had previously been struck due to repeated breaches of court orders, attempted to resile from the settlement, claiming she did not intend to settle and lacked legal advice.

The court reviewed the extensive litigation history, noted the respondent's 'scorched earth' tactics, and found that a binding settlement had been reached on the record.

The court granted a final order enforcing the settlement, requiring the applicant to pay $30,000 for the respondent's interest in the family residence, conditional upon her waiving all appeal rights.

The appellant father appealed a trial costs order of $185,000, which the trial judge directed to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) as 'lump sum spousal support'.

The father argued this was an error because spousal support was never claimed or litigated.

The Court of Appeal agreed that characterizing the costs as spousal support was an error, but upheld the trial judge's intention that the costs be enforced by the FRO, as child support was a live issue at trial.

The Court amended the order to characterize the costs simply as 'support'.

The father's other grounds of appeal regarding the quantum of costs and procedural fairness were dismissed.

The mother's motion to quash the appeal for the father's alleged failure to post proper security for costs was also dismissed.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion brought by the respondent mother seeking a temporary order preventing the applicant father from traveling outside Canada with their five-year-old child.

The motion was dismissed after an oral hearing.

The father sought full recovery costs of $6,655, while the mother requested no costs be awarded.

The court found the father was the successful party and awarded costs, but slightly discounted the award due to the father's contribution to the poor family dynamic.

The mother acted unreasonably by surreptitiously recording a conversation with the father and misrepresenting the contents of the audiotape to obtain an adjournment that would have cancelled the planned trip.

Following competing disclosure motions in a family law proceeding, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had obtained extensive disclosure orders while the respondent achieved minimal success and had withdrawn the majority of her disclosure requests shortly before the hearing.

The court found that the respondent’s pleadings and expansive initial disclosure requests had significantly increased the costs of the motion and that her contempt allegations against the applicant were unsuccessful.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and relevant Ontario jurisprudence, the court determined that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate despite the respondent’s claim of inability to pay.

Costs of $21,000 inclusive of HST were ordered payable by the respondent within 30 days.

The parties brought competing motions for disclosure in a family law property dispute arising from cohabitation.

The respondent sought declarations of disclosure non-compliance and extensive additional production, while the applicant sought disclosure relating to the respondent’s financial affairs and property claims.

The court dismissed the respondent’s primary request concerning alleged failure to disclose a third-party lawyer’s file and denied most of her additional requests for disclosure.

Extensive disclosure was ordered from the respondent concerning property ownership, financial records, immigration files, business income, and other matters relevant to her broad claims.

Limited disclosure was ordered from the applicant, and the remaining relief in the motions was dismissed.

Following trial reasons granting judgment to the plaintiffs and dismissing a motion brought by a defendant, the court addressed entitlement and quantum of costs.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court found the successful parties presumptively entitled to costs.

The court concluded that the primary defendant had acted in bad faith through conduct including unfounded allegations of fraud and conspiracy, misleading the court in a Mareva injunction motion, and refusing to comply with a memorandum of understanding.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore warranted.

The defendants were ordered jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs and intervenors full recovery amounts for fees and disbursements.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce a Memorandum of Understanding resolving disputes arising from the breakdown of a common law relationship and corporate control over a property‑holding company.

The defendant argued the MOU was merely a framework for future agreements and that it had been signed under economic duress caused by earlier court orders and the threat of eviction.

The court found the MOU constituted a final and binding settlement agreement, noting the parties’ clear contractual language, extensive negotiations, and the defendant’s subsequent reliance on the agreement.

Allegations that the agreement was procured under duress or that earlier court orders were obtained by fraud were rejected.

The defendant’s motion to set aside prior orders was dismissed and the settlement was enforced.