James Herbert

The parties separated after a nine-year marriage with no children.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property, spousal support, and a share in the post-separation increase in value of the matrimonial home, which was titled solely in the respondent's name.

The court found the applicant did not establish a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home and was only entitled to share in its value up to the date of separation.

The court valued the respondent's orthodontic practices at $675,000 and determined that funds advanced by the respondent's parents were loans, but discounted them to 10% of their face value due to the low likelihood of repayment.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $606,728.60 and spousal support of $2,228 per month for four and one-half years.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child support against both the biological father and the step-father who stood in the place of a parent.

The biological father agreed to pay a monthly amount based on his reported income.

The step-father argued the motion should be adjourned until the biological father's true income could be determined, alleging intentional underemployment.

The court refused to adjourn the motion, finding it contrary to the child's best interests.

The court ordered the step-father to pay $1,609 per month in interim child support, calculating his obligation using a 'top-up' method based on the parents' combined incomes.

The court also granted in part the step-father's cross-motion for financial disclosure from the biological father, ordering production of tax returns and investment statements but finding requests for corporate valuations and tracing to be disproportionate.

The applicant sought a one-half beneficial interest in a home solely owned by the respondent, claiming she contributed over $200,000 towards its purchase and extensive renovations during their relationship.

The respondent admitted unjust enrichment but argued the applicant was only entitled to a monetary award based on value received.

The court found the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and that the applicant's contributions were investments, not loans.

Concluding that a monetary award would be unfair and difficult to quantify, the court imposed a constructive trust granting the applicant a 50% beneficial ownership in the home.

The parties brought competing motions for temporary parenting time and decision-making authority.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time for the respondent father, alleging an imminent risk of child abduction to Iran.

The respondent father sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making, alleging the applicant was alienating the children.

The court struck the applicant's expert affidavit on Iranian passport law for lack of independence.

The court found no credible risk of abduction and ordered equal parenting time on a week on/week off basis, joint decision-making, and continued a mutual non-removal order.

The respondent's request for an advance on matrimonial home proceeds was dismissed without prejudice.

The plaintiff brought an action for libel against the defendants regarding an article published in a South Korean newspaper and on its website.

The defendant author argued the action was statute-barred under the Libel and Slander Act and the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the words were not defamatory.

The court found that the notice and limitation provisions of the Libel and Slander Act did not apply as the newspaper was not printed and published in Ontario, and even if they did, the action was commenced in time based on the discoverability principle.

The court held the article was defamatory and the author's conduct was reckless and malicious.

The plaintiff was awarded $12,000 in general damages, $5,000 in punitive damages, and a permanent injunction.