James D. Singer

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.

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.

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, 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 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.

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.