James David Singer

The applicant and respondent were common-law partners for approximately 13 years who separated in June 2015.

Shortly after separation, the respondent sold the assets of his patient transfer business for over $5,000,000.

The applicant sought spousal support and a share of the sale proceeds.

The proprietary claims were resolved on consent for $1,220,000.

At trial, the court determined the applicant's continuing entitlement to spousal support on a primarily non-compensatory basis, finding the respondent's income ranged from $257,000 to $517,000 between 2020 and 2023.

The court rejected the applicant's claim that the respondent's conduct constituted a gross repudiation of the relationship under s. 33(10) of the Family Law Act.

Ongoing spousal support was fixed at $5,079 per month, with retroactive adjustments for 2020-2024, terminating June 30, 2027.

The respondent sought costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to set aside a purported settlement and the respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment to enforce the settlement.

The respondent claimed costs on a full recovery basis or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis up to May 15, 2025, and thereafter on a full indemnity basis, citing the applicant's bad faith conduct.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis prior to May 16, 2025, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, but reduced the amount to account for proportionality and excluded costs related to the respondent's cross-motion and attendance by a second counsel.

The final costs award was fixed at $19,000.

This decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute between H.S. (mother) and D.N. (father) involving two children.

The court considers whether to implement the recommendations of a section 30 assessment report pending trial, including supervised parenting time for the father and decision-making authority for the mother.

The court finds compelling circumstances to intervene prior to trial, citing ongoing parental conflict, emotional harm to the children, non-compliance with court orders, and gaps in evidence caused by the father's lack of cooperation.

The court orders supervised parenting time for the father, grants the mother decision-making authority, and sets out steps to address outstanding assessment and disclosure issues to ensure trial readiness.

The applicant moved to set aside a settlement agreement reached via an accepted offer to settle, arguing the respondent failed to carry out its terms by paying the settlement funds two days after the negotiated deadline.

The respondent cross-moved to enforce the settlement.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that time was not explicitly made of the essence in the offer to settle and the brief delay did not demonstrate an intention not to be bound by the contract.

The settlement remained binding and the matter was directed to proceed to trial solely on the remaining issue of support.

The applicant sought equalization following a brief marriage, while the respondent relied on a 2012 document signed in Israel to argue that equalization had been contracted out of under the Family Law Act.

The court held that the document did not clearly oust equalization, was not properly witnessed as required by s. 55(1), and in any event should be set aside under s. 56(4) because the applicant did not understand its nature or consequences in the context in which it was created.

The court therefore determined the equalization amount rather than remitting the issue, deducting disposition costs from the matrimonial home and fixing the total owing at $132,050.85 after post-separation adjustments.

The respondent's spousal support claim was dismissed for lack of evidentiary foundation and entitlement.

The applicant, Lily Ror, sought to be removed as a director of Rovimat Group Inc. effective August 11, 2019, under the oppression remedy provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court found that the conduct of the respondent, Rolando Pires, in dissolving and reviving the corporation without her knowledge, diluting her shareholding, and exposing her to personal liability, amounted to unfair prejudice and disregard of her interests as a director.

The court ordered her removal as director effective the requested date and awarded her costs.

The plaintiff suffered a cardiac arrest and profound brain damage following a Caesarean section delivery.

She brought a medical malpractice action against the obstetrical and anaesthesiology teams.

The court found that the obstetrical team met the standard of care.

While the staff anaesthesiologist breached the standard of care in three respects, the court concluded that these breaches did not cause the plaintiff's injuries.

The court accepted expert evidence that the cardiac arrest was caused by an unpredictable and unpreventable amniotic fluid embolism, rather than hemorrhagic shock.

The court also ruled that the claim against the anaesthesiologists was not statute-barred due to the discoverability doctrine.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her application for parenting orders, retroactive and ongoing child support, and s. 7 expenses under the Family Law Act.

The motion judge had dismissed the application due to an existing divorce judgment from Michigan that already contained parenting and child support orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's application of legal principles or exercise of discretion, noting that there was little else in dispute beyond child support.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary orders for sole decision-making authority regarding the children's education, increased child and spousal support, and production of text messages between the respondent father and her ex-boyfriend.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the proposed private school enrollment was not in the child's best interests, the existing voluntary support payments were adequate, and the requested text messages were irrelevant to the proceedings.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The mother had commenced an application in Ontario seeking to vary a Michigan Consent Judgment of Divorce that included child support provisions.

The father argued that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction, asserting that the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA) was the exclusive mechanism for varying a foreign support order from a reciprocating jurisdiction.

The court found that the child support provisions in the foreign divorce could not be varied or replaced by a provincial order in Ontario, as the case did not fall within the narrow exceptions to the general rule that ISOA is the proper route.

The court dismissed the mother's child support claims, concluding there was no genuine issue for trial regarding jurisdiction.

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 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 mother brought a motion to change a shared parenting order to sole custody and primary residence, which was ultimately resolved on consent after significant litigation.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $105,842.66, arguing the father's unreasonable behaviour drove up costs.

The father argued each party should bear their own costs as the matter settled on consent.

The court found the mother was the successful party and the father's entrenched position was unreasonable, but held the mother's claimed costs were disproportionate.

The court awarded the mother costs of $35,000.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding a weekday access-exchange location.

Both parties filed extensive materials that significantly exceeded the limits set by the Chief's Notice and a prior judicial direction, which the court deemed disproportionate and an abuse of process.

The court refused to hear the motion as constructed and ordered the parties to re-file their evidence, strictly limited to ten pages for affidavit and exhibits, with a three-page limit for reply material.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a case conference to address access facilitation after his previously proposed facilitator, his sister, tested positive for COVID-19 and required quarantine.

The respondent mother disputed the urgency, arguing the father acted hastily and failed to propose alternative facilitators.

The court, applying principles from Balbontin v. Luwawa and Ribeiro v. Wright regarding COVID-19 and parenting, found the matter urgent.

The father's motion was granted, and an urgent case conference was scheduled to address access facilitation, with specific directions for the parties' submissions.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a case conference to increase access time for his child and to change the access exchange facilitator.

The respondent mother disputed the urgency of the request, citing the Chief Justice's Notice regarding COVID-19 court operations.

The court applied the urgency criteria from the Chief's Notice and Thomas v. Wohleber, finding that the father's concerns were not immediate, serious, or material, and that the request for expanded parenting time was premature given an ongoing OCL investigation.

The motion was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay costs to the mother.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion concerning access, but his supporting affidavit grossly exceeded the four-page limit stipulated by the April 17, 2020 (amended) CER Notice to the Profession.

Due to this non-compliance with the practice direction, the court denied the urgent case conference request without prejudice, allowing the applicant to renew the request upon compliance.

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.

This decision addresses costs following two motions concerning matrimonial property and spousal support.

The court had ordered the applicant to purchase the matrimonial property and increased spousal support, though not to the extent sought by the applicant.

The respondent was granted leave to sell two properties.

The court found success to be mixed, with the applicant slightly more successful, and attributed greater fault for the delay in selling the matrimonial home to the respondent.

However, no bad faith was found on either side, and the applicant did not achieve a result more favourable than her offer to settle.

The respondent was ordered to pay fixed costs of $10,000 to the applicant.

The court heard two motions concerning the sale of the former matrimonial residence and adjustments to spousal support.

The respondent also sought to sell a jointly held Florida property and two Ontario properties.

The court found the respondent primarily at fault for the delay in selling the matrimonial home and ordered the applicant to purchase the respondent's interest in it under specific terms.

Interim spousal support was varied, with the respondent's income assessed at $200,000 and the applicant's at $20,000, resulting in a monthly payment of $3,675.

The non-depletion order was varied to permit the respondent to sell other properties, subject to conditions preventing asset dissipation.

The court declined jurisdiction over the sale of the Florida property and ordered the applicant to provide an accounting of chattels sold.