Howard J. Feldman

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 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.

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 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.