Ira Marcovitch

Appeal from a trial decision addressing all issues arising from the separation of the parties, including parenting arrangements, imputation of income, child support (including section 7 expenses and retroactivity), spousal support, the validity of a marriage contract, and equalization.

The appellant father challenged nearly every aspect of the trial judgment, alleging 42 errors.

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's findings on parenting arrangements, income imputation, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and the validity of the marriage contract, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The motion for fresh evidence was dismissed, as was the appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

This costs endorsement addresses entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law dispute regarding a change of school for the parties' child and a withdrawn claim for an interest in the proceeds of sale of a home.

The court apportions costs based on success on the various issues, the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, and the use of withdrawn claims as litigation leverage.

The result is a net costs award of $10,000 payable from the Applicant to the Respondent.

The applicant father sought shared decision-making, a shared parenting schedule, child support, spousal support, and an equalization payment, challenging the validity of the parties' prenuptial agreement.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, child support based on imputed income, and validation of the prenuptial agreement.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making due to findings of family violence and maintained her primary residence of the child.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the father due to intentional underemployment, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, dismissed his spousal support claim, and upheld the prenuptial agreement.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the appeal was not devoid of merit or frivolous, and there was no partial success or misconduct by the respondent.

Consequently, the respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs.

This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of the Ontario court in a family law dispute over parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support.

The appellant father argued that the motion judge erred in finding the child habitually resident in Ontario, claiming he did not tacitly consent or acquiesce to the child's move from Montreal to Ottawa.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite a minor error by the motion judge in considering post-application conduct, sufficient evidence supported the finding of the father's tacit consent or acquiescence to the child's habitual residence in Ontario.

The Respondent brought a motion disputing the Ontario Superior Court of Justice's jurisdiction over family law issues, including decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support, concerning the child O.R. The Applicant argued that Ontario had jurisdiction based on the child's habitual residence.

The court found that O.R. was habitually resident in Ontario at the time the application was filed, with the implied consent or acquiescence of the Respondent, thereby establishing the court's jurisdiction.

Following a trial with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The applicant was successful in setting aside the marriage contract and obtaining equalization and spousal support, while the respondent was successful in obtaining a finding of parental alienation and limiting spousal support.

The court found the applicant's alienating conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Balancing the divided success, the applicant's bad faith, and the respondent's excessive costs claims, the court ordered both parties to bear their own costs.

The parties separated after a 10-year marriage.

The applicant mother sought to set aside a marriage contract signed days before the wedding, claiming she did not understand its nature or consequences.

The court agreed and set aside the contract, awarding the mother an equalization payment of $289,170.15 and spousal support of $3,636 per month for seven years.

On parenting, the court found the mother had engaged in parental alienation, severely damaging the father's relationship with the 16-year-old child.

The court ordered joint decision-making and mandatory reunification counselling, with costs of the counselling to be shared equally.

The appellant, Igor Alexander Winter, appealed a trial decision regarding the division of net proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned home following the breakup of his relationship with the respondent, Ronald James MacIntyre.

The trial judge had ordered an equal division, finding that Winter intended to gift his initial contributions (down payments) to MacIntyre.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to properly apply the presumption of resulting trust, which places the burden on the transferee (MacIntyre) to prove a gift was intended by the transferor (Winter).

The Court held that the trial judge's reasoning was flawed, particularly in extrapolating an intention to gift from the joint tenancy established for survivorship purposes, and that there was insufficient clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust.

The appeal was allowed, and Winter was ordered to be repaid his initial contributions from the sale proceeds before equal division of the balance.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary sole custody to enroll the child in an Ontario school, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction because the child was habitually resident in Quebec.

The court applied section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act and found that the child's habitual residence remained in Quebec, meaning Ontario lacked jurisdiction over the main application.

However, pursuant to section 40(b) of the Act, the court granted the mother temporary sole custody to allow her to make important decisions, such as school enrollment, pending the resolution of the jurisdictional and paternity proceedings in Quebec.

The applicant father sought a temporary order for primary residential care or an equally shared residential schedule for his nine-year-old son, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The mother opposed, asserting the child should continue to reside with her due to the child's wishes and fear of the father.

The court found the mother exerted significant influence over the child, supported his negative attitude towards the father, and minimized her own mental health issues.

The court dismissed the mother's allegations of abuse against the father and concluded that it was in the child's best interests to reside with the father temporarily, subject to specific terms for transition, counselling, and limited initial contact with the mother.

The applicant and respondent, former cohabitants of 22 years, sought resolution on spousal support and property division.

The applicant sought indefinite spousal support and equal division of the jointly owned Arnprior property.

The respondent denied spousal support entitlement, sought repayment of previously paid support, and reimbursement for initial contributions to both the Ottawa and Arnprior properties.

The court found the applicant entitled to indefinite non-compensatory spousal support, but at a lower monthly amount than previously ordered, resulting in a significant overpayment by the respondent.

The court also determined that the respondent's initial financial contributions to the properties were intended as gifts, thus ordering an equal division of the Arnprior property's net proceeds.

The overpaid spousal support was ordered to be deducted from the applicant's share of the property proceeds.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent mother's access to their 7-year-old son, C.A.B., citing concerns about her compliance with COVID-19 directives and lack of communication regarding safety measures.

The court, emphasizing the child's best interests and the importance of routine, declined to suspend access.

Instead, it ordered that the existing access schedule continue, subject to new conditions and restrictions related to COVID-19 protocols, including immediate notification of potential exposure, detailed communication via Family Wizard after visits, the father primarily providing transportation, and avoiding public transportation as much as possible.

Costs were reserved.

The self-represented respondent mother brought a motion seeking third-party records from the RCMP and the applicant father's family doctor, leave to file a late Response to Request to Admit, and a trial adjournment.

The court dismissed the request for medical records as a fishing expedition and refused the trial adjournment, noting the mother's delay and the lack of evidentiary basis.

The request for RCMP records was adjourned due to improper service.

However, the court granted the mother leave to file her late Response to Request to Admit, finding it raised triable issues and her delay was explained by her self-represented status.

This decision addresses issues of child support, spousal support, and a contempt motion following a previous decision on parenting.

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother for failing to deposit the child's Russian birth certificate as ordered.

The court found that the mother's disobedience was not proven to be deliberate and wilful beyond a reasonable doubt, adjourning the contempt motion with conditions for the mother to provide further evidence of her efforts to locate the document and directions to the Russian Embassy.

Regarding support, the court considered a pre-nuptial agreement but ordered interim spousal support of $3,192 per month from the father to the mother, and child support of $192 per month from the mother to the father, resulting in a net payment of $3,000 per month to the mother.

The court declined to order the immediate payment of a $150,000 lump sum stipulated in the marriage contract due to concerns about the mother being a flight risk and potential recovery issues if the contract is later invalidated.

The Respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking interim sole custody of the parties' 13-year-old child and a suspension of the Applicant mother's access, alleging severe parental alienation.

The father also sought a finding of contempt for the mother's failure to deposit the child's birth certificate.

The mother opposed, seeking primary care with supervised access for the father, and cross-moved for child/spousal support and OCL appointment.

The court found the mother engaged in significant alienating behaviors, granting the father sole custody and suspending the mother's access for two months, to be reviewed after reunification counseling.

The issues of contempt and support were reserved for a later decision.

The parties separated after a short marriage.

Prior to marriage, they signed a contract excluding the applicant's significant corporate assets from net family property but requiring him to pay child support for the respondent's two children from a previous relationship.

The applicant sought to set aside the child support provision, arguing he no longer stood in the place of a parent.

The court upheld the marriage contract, finding the applicant stood in loco parentis and that setting aside the provision would be unconscionable.

The court determined the applicant's income based on his spending habits rather than corporate profits, ordering child support for all three children and spousal support for five years.