James F. Diamond

Following a 10-day trial in a high-conflict family law matter, the court ordered sole decision-making responsibility to the applicant mother.

The respondent father, an airline pilot, consistently failed to comply with interim parenting orders and unilaterally changed schedules.

The court fixed a parenting schedule, imputed income to the mother, ordered child support and indefinite spousal support, and made findings on property valuations for equalization purposes.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 15-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed an exceptionally high standard of living, with family wealth including a $200 million business fund and multiple luxury properties.

The applicant argued the motion was premature due to an impending $90 million equalization payment and contested the respondent's proposed budget as inflated.

The court found the motion was not premature and the respondent was entitled to support.

Given the applicant's income far exceeded the $350,000 ceiling, the court departed from a strict application of the guidelines, awarding $200,000 per month in interim spousal support and $75,000 per month in interim child support, plus $27,000 monthly for nannies.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

The self-represented appellant appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent primary care, sole decision-making authority, and child support, as well as a costs order.

The appellant argued the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act because the respondent and children resided in Alberta when the application commenced.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the children and parties now permanently reside in Ontario, the children would suffer serious harm if removed, and the appellant had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by actively litigating the merits.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The respondent husband, a police officer, was suspended with base pay due to criminal charges laid by the applicant.

The court found the applicant entitled to interim spousal support.

The court declined to impute higher income to the respondent, finding his suspension did not constitute intentional under-employment while criminal charges remained pending.

The court imputed the applicant's income at a discounted rate of $45,000 to account for her recent return to work and health issues.

The applicant brought an ex parte motion for investigative and protective orders under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Hague Convention after the respondent allegedly removed the parties' children from Mexico in breach of a non-removal order.

The applicant's investigator indicated the children arrived in Canada, but the respondent may have subsequently left the country without them.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction under the CLRA without confirmatory evidence of the children's physical presence in Ontario.

However, the court invoked its inherent parens patriae jurisdiction to grant investigative orders directing the Ontario Central Authority to assist in locating the children, reserving the protective orders until further evidence of their whereabouts is filed.

At the outset of a family law trial, the court noted that the parties' last common habitual residence was in Iran.

Pursuant to section 15 of the Family Law Act, the parties' property rights are governed by Iranian law.

Because neither party had filed expert evidence on Iranian law, the court adjourned the trial to allow the parties to obtain and file expert reports, and converted the remainder of the attendance into a settlement conference.

The applicant commenced a family law application seeking to declare the deceased respondent's religious marriage to the second respondent void, and to annul that marriage on the basis of bigamy.

The second respondent claimed to be a common law spouse entitled to spousal support under Part III of the Family Law Act.

The court found the proceeding moot because the deceased respondent had already died before the application was commenced, such that he was no longer a "spouse" under either the Family Law Act or the Divorce Act.

The second respondent's only available remedies lie in an application for dependent's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The proceeding was dismissed as moot without prejudice to those rights.

A Hague Convention application for the return of a child to Hong Kong was commenced in June 2025.

The respondent in the underlying Hague application sought an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, pending the outcome of a refugee application before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the adjournment request; the applicant vigorously opposed it.

The court, acting as case management judge, denied the adjournment, holding that Hague Convention applications must proceed expeditiously as judge-led proceedings in accordance with Balev and Rule 37.2 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found no blanket prohibition against proceeding while a refugee application is pending, and held that indefinitely deferring the Hague hearing would risk the child aging out of the Convention's protection and breach Canada's international obligations.

In this urgent family law motion, the applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home located in Toronto.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking exclusive possession with the children residing with him on a week-about parenting schedule.

The court granted the applicant's motion for exclusive possession on an interim basis, finding that the applicant, as the primary caregiver throughout the marriage with no current income, was in a more vulnerable position than the respondent, who had greater financial resources and could obtain alternative accommodation.

The court also imposed an interim parenting schedule providing the respondent with access every two out of three weekends plus weeknight parenting time, finding that the children's best interests required maintaining their relationship with their father despite the separation.

The court considered an urgent motion regarding the interim primary residence of a 12-year-old child, M, following allegations of abuse and emotional harm.

After reviewing evidence from the Children’s Aid Society, school officials, and a Voice of the Child report, the court found it in M’s best interests to reside primarily with the respondent, Kory Guenette, in Verner, Ontario.

The decision details the history of the parties’ relationship, the child’s expressed wishes, and the relevant legal framework for determining best interests in parenting disputes.

The applicant, Maria Elena Lao Chan, sought to set aside a 1995 divorce judgment between herself and her now-deceased husband, Wing Sang Chan, on the grounds of mistake and/or fraud.

The court reviewed the lengthy factual and procedural history, including conflicting narratives about the parties' marital status, the authenticity of affidavits, and the involvement of handwriting experts.

Ultimately, the court found insufficient evidence to support Maria's claims of fraud, inadequate child support arrangements, or lack of jurisdiction.

The motion was dismissed.

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction to hear a family law application involving parties with significant international connections, including property in the Bahamas and Spain, and a prior divorce proceeding commenced in Spain.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction over all claims, including divorce, support, decision-making responsibility, and property/equalization, due to the real and substantial connection between the parties and Ontario, particularly as the applicant and one child were ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The respondent's motion to stay or dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis of forum non conveniens was dismissed.

The applicant, Hugh Kuang, sought an order for $4,110,000.00 in interim legal costs and disbursements to fund an upcoming trial under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and the Family Law Rules.

The respondents resisted, arguing that a prior consent order providing $1,000,000.00 did not establish the applicant's ongoing entitlement to interim funding.

The court determined that the prior consent order resolved the issue of entitlement, leaving only the questions of compliance and quantum.

Finding the applicant's proposed budget excessive but recognizing the complexity of the litigation, the court granted the motion in part and ordered the corporate respondents to pay $2,725,000.00 in four staged payments.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for reunification therapy between herself and the parties' 15-year-old daughter, C, with the respondent covering expenses.

The court, applying the five-factor test from Leelaratna v. Leelaratna, dismissed the motion.

The judge found no compelling expert evidence to support the therapy, noted the interim stage of the proceedings, and emphasized C's views as a mature minor, who was not willing to voluntarily participate at this time.

The court concluded that forcing reunification therapy would not be in C's best interests and preferred an organic approach to mending the relationship.

The applicant sought interim spousal support of $1,250 per month for a fixed two-year period, arguing for a departure from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs).

The respondent opposed, arguing no entitlement or support within the SSAG range ($206-$274).

The court found entitlement based on non-compensatory need due to the applicant's financial disadvantage from moving to Canada for the marriage and her current lack of income while pursuing a dental hygiene program.

The court exercised its discretion to depart from the SSAGs, ordering interim spousal support of $850 per month for a fixed period until May 1, 2026, along with other financial provisions.

In a family law proceeding involving cryptocurrency assets, the applicant brought a long motion regarding disclosure.

The respondents sought leave under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to file an expert affidavit after having already cross-examined the applicant on her motion materials.

The court dismissed the request for leave, finding the respondents failed to show the evidence responded to a matter raised on cross-examination or provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The court also ruled on several refusals from questioning, ordering the respondents to answer some questions while upholding other refusals.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the production of a corporate server (Decentral Server) for disclosure purposes, arguing the respondents had not adequately searched it.

This request had been previously dismissed by Justice Kiteley.

The applicant sought to revisit the prior decision, asserting new material facts, including the respondent's alleged failure to comply with an offer to conduct further searches and new expert evidence on e-discovery methods.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the alleged new facts were either not fundamentally different from what was previously argued or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the original motion.

The court affirmed that interlocutory orders are binding unless new, material, and previously undiscoverable facts are presented.

The applicant sought an interim 2-2-3 parenting schedule for their five-year-old daughter, N., following the parents' separation and the applicant's gender transition.

The respondent opposed, requesting a longer 'step-up' schedule.

The court considered N.'s best interests, noting her anxiety due to significant life changes and the respondent's role as primary caregiver.

The court ordered a phased 'step-up' parenting schedule, culminating in the applicant having parenting time 5 out of every 14 days, conditional on securing a suitable residence near the matrimonial home.

The court emphasized minimizing adverse impact on the child's well-being.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs across six intertwined proceedings.

The court awarded Maria Konstan $425,000 in all-inclusive costs against Samuel Jacob Berkovits and Saeed Hosseini.

This award was based on Maria's successful abuse of process claim, despite her malicious prosecution claim being dismissed, and the finding of Berkovits's malicious conduct.

Conversely, no costs were awarded between Samuel Jacob Berkovits and Harold Gerstel, as both parties engaged in reprehensible conduct and attempted to mislead the court, which would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

This endorsement addresses two outstanding issues: the effect of the respondent's interim child support overpayments and the costs of the motions.

The court ordered the respondent's child support overpayment to be credited monthly over the remainder of 2023 to ensure continuous support for the children.

Regarding costs, the respondent, who was successful on a novel summary judgment motion, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $20,000, finding the respondent's settlement offer lacked compromise and acknowledging the applicant's reasonable opposition to a novel legal issue.