James David Singer

This endorsement addresses multiple motions and cross-motions in a family law dispute following a 2014 separation.

The court dismissed the Applicant's requests for an adjournment, a voice of the child report, a preservation order against the Respondent's assets, and further disclosure.

It also dismissed the Respondent's request for a further parenting assessment.

The court granted the Applicant's motion to increase temporary child support to $9,277 per month and temporary spousal support to $8,500 per month, based on the Respondent's averaged income of $750,000.

Retroactive support was left for trial.

A support deduction order was issued, and all other relief sought was dismissed.

The Respondent moved for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to facilitate its sale, offering a $600,000 equalization advance and an increase in temporary spousal support.

The Applicant resisted, citing the children's best interests and difficulty finding alternative accommodation.

The court granted the Respondent's motion, finding that the delay was not due to the Respondent's disclosure issues, that moving was inevitable for the children, and that the Applicant would be able to find suitable housing with the provided funds and support.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding party to fulfill two undertakings given during questioning, specifically requesting marked-up statements to prove her actual expenses from a three-year-old financial statement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's request required the responding party to create a new document not covered by the original undertaking.

The court also held that the request was not proportional to the issues at trial, as need is only one factor in determining spousal support under the Divorce Act.

This is a costs endorsement following motions heard on September 24, 2018.

Both the applicant and the respondent requested their costs, each claiming to be the more reasonable and successful party.

The court found that neither party could truly claim success, as six issues were addressed in the prior decision with success being divided.

The court discouraged the practice of dissecting each issue to determine reasonableness for costs.

Given the mixed success, the court ordered no costs to either party.

This decision addresses interlocutory motions concerning spousal support, property re-mortgaging, interim disbursements for business valuation, health benefits, property access, and asset dissipation.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to clarify a spousal support order, finding no material change in circumstances from mortgage renegotiation.

It ordered the applicant to sign re-mortgaging documents.

The court granted the applicant's request for $56,500 in interim disbursements for a business valuation and ordered the respondent to reinstate health coverage and reimburse expenses.

The respondent was permitted to attend the jointly owned property under specific conditions, but his request for a further exception to a non-dissipation order for living expenses was denied, as he could draw a salary from his corporations.

Following a decision on cross-motions regarding spousal support, property sale, and disclosure, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant was largely successful on the main issue of spousal support, while the respondent had partial success on his motion.

The court found that neither party's offer to settle engaged the costs consequences of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court reduced the applicant's claimed costs and awarded her partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,765.

In this high-conflict family law trial, the court determined equalization, child support, and spousal support following a 12-year marriage.

The respondent husband had a history of deceit and hiding assets, complicating the determination of his income and net family property.

The court ordered an equalization payment of over $1 million to the applicant wife, imputed income to both parties, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

Due to the respondent's conduct, the court ordered a lump sum for ongoing spousal support and secured the equalization payment against his corporate assets.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change custody and access arrangements.

The mother was completely successful in obtaining sole custody of two children, with the father receiving limited supervised access and the paternal grandparents prohibited from direct contact with the children.

The father had sought sole decision-making authority over educational matters, while the mother cross-moved for sole custody.

The court awarded costs to the mother against both the father and paternal grandparents in the amount of $150,000, finding the mother's conduct reasonable throughout the proceedings and the father and paternal grandparents' conduct unreasonable, including making false allegations and coaching the children.

The applicant father brought a motion within a motion to change, seeking an order for the child to attend Kettle Lakes Public School in Richmond Hill.

The respondent mother opposed, proposing Churchill Public School in Toronto.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test, considering factors such as proximity of schools to residences and workplaces, consistency in the child's wake-up times, before and after school care costs and availability, residential stability"intangible" benefits of school board alignment, and familiarity with the school location.

The court found that Kettle Lakes offered significant advantages regarding consistent wake-up times and marginal advantages in before/after care and alignment with the father's school board employment.

Churchill had a significant advantage in the child's familiarity with its location.

Ultimately, the court granted the father's motion, concluding that Kettle Lakes was more consistent with the child's best interests, primarily due to avoiding a two-hour difference in wake-up times that would threaten the stability of the existing day-about care schedule.

The respondent husband brought a motion to reduce an interim spousal support order of $16,848 per month to $7,000 per month, arguing a substantial change in circumstances due to business losses and capital erosion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the original interim order explicitly anticipated the husband would need to encroach on capital to maintain the marital standard of living due to his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court held that the heavy onus to vary a temporary order was not met and that final financial determinations should be left to the impending trial.

In a family law proceeding, the court considered whether costs should be ordered personally against a lawyer who formerly acted for the respondent spouse.

The lawyer failed to ensure the timely filing and service of the respondent’s Answer and related pleadings, despite having them signed, and made no meaningful follow-up after the opposing party initiated uncontested trial procedures.

This failure resulted in a final order being obtained and the respondent being excluded from the matrimonial home, necessitating further motions and new counsel.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(9), the court found that the lawyer’s conduct wasted costs and justified a personal costs order.

The lawyer was ordered to personally pay a portion of both parties’ costs.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking various interim orders, including the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, medical disclosure regarding the applicant father's leave of absence, a change in the child's school, and interim child support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no evidence that the child would be negatively impacted and noting the father's financial difficulties in maintaining the property.

The court also ordered the father to provide medical disclosure and pay interim child support.

The mother's request to change the child's school was dismissed due to a lack of material change in circumstances, though the interim parenting schedule was slightly modified to reduce the child's travel time.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking various interim orders, including the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, disclosure of the applicant father's medical records regarding his work leave, child support, and a change in the child's school from Markham to Toronto.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no evidence that the child would be negatively impacted and noting the father's financial difficulties.

The court also ordered the father to provide medical documentation regarding his leave of absence.

The request to change the child's school was dismissed as there was no material change in circumstances, but the interim parenting schedule was slightly modified to reduce the child's travel time.

Interim child support and payment of household expenses were also ordered.

The appellant wife appealed the trial judge's equalization of net family property and costs award, arguing that post-separation losses in a limited partnership should be shared and that divergent notional tax rates should apply to taxable assets.

The respondent husband cross-appealed the imputation of income to him and the dismissal of his spousal support claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the wife's exclusive control of the investment, the lack of evidence for divergent tax rates, the imputation of income based on the husband's credibility and lifestyle, and the discretionary denial of spousal support.

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 brought a motion under Rules 1(8) and 14(23) of the Family Law Rules to strike the respondent’s pleadings for failure to comply with interim support and school expense orders.

The respondent was in arrears but had a pending motion for leave to appeal the interim support order and intended to seek a stay.

The court found the respondent was in breach of the order and emphasized the seriousness of non‑compliance with court orders.

However, striking the pleadings would effectively render the pending leave to appeal meaningless.

In the exceptional circumstances created by the imminent leave to appeal and potential stay application, the motion to strike was adjourned pending determination of the appeal-related motions, and the request for a preservation of property order was dismissed.

In matrimonial litigation, the respondent spouse brought a motion seeking extensive third‑party production relating to the estate and business affairs of the applicant’s deceased father, asserting that undisclosed gifts or anticipated inheritance were relevant to spousal support.

The court held that the request was based largely on speculation and suspicion and declined to order broad production from the estate, particularly where the inheritance had not yet been distributed and was subject to ongoing litigation.

The court ordered instead that the applicant provide an affidavit from the father’s accountant confirming any income received from the father or his businesses since separation.

On a cross‑motion, the applicant sought security for an anticipated equalization payment under s. 12 of the Family Law Act.

Finding a real risk of dissipation of assets due to inconsistent financial disclosures and substantial cash holdings, the court ordered the respondent to pay $500,000 into court pending trial.

Following the applicant’s success on her motion for interim disbursements and on the respondent’s travel motion, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs relying on Offers to Settle served shortly before the hearing.

The respondent argued the fees claimed were excessive and should be limited to the legal aid tariff.

The court rejected that argument but accepted that deficiencies in the applicant’s motion record increased the time required for the hearing.

The court fixed costs for the interim disbursement motion at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, and confirmed $3,770 for the travel motion.

The plaintiffs' home and personal property were damaged by a fire.

They sued their insurer and the restoration contractor for incomplete and deficient repairs, unpaid additional living expenses, and damaged or destroyed personal property.

The insurer alleged the plaintiffs committed fraud in their proofs of loss.

The court found no fraud, holding that the insurer breached its duty of good faith by raising the fraud allegation as a high-handed litigation strategy.

The court awarded the plaintiffs damages for the deficient home repairs, additional living expenses, and lost personal property, along with $100,000 in punitive damages against the insurer.