Jared Teitel

The Applicant Father sought to exclude private investigator surveillance evidence obtained by the Respondent Mother, arguing she failed to provide complete disclosure of the investigators' files despite multiple court orders.

The Mother sought leave to admit the evidence under Rule 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the Mother's failure to disclose the complete file prejudiced the Father's ability to assess the evidence and prepare for trial.

Given the highly prejudicial nature of the videos, the lack of full disclosure, and the inability to cross-examine the investigators, the court excluded the surveillance evidence in its entirety, including for the purpose of impeachment.

Following a successful summary judgment motion, the respondent father sought costs.

The applicant mother opposed and sought her own costs, despite filing excessively voluminous materials and advancing meritless claims.

The court awarded the father $15,000 in costs, finding the mother's behaviour unreasonable and disproportionate.

The court further held that it had jurisdiction under section 111 of the Courts of Justice Act to set off the costs award against $5,563.37 in child support arrears owed by the father, as the arrears constituted a 'debt'.

The set off was ordered, leaving a net costs amount of $9,436.63 owing to the father.

The appellant father appealed a case management judge's decision to adjourn a contested motion brought by the Office of the Children's Lawyer until a recusal motion could be heard.

The case management judge had determined the recusal motion was too long to be heard during COVID-19 protocols, resulting in legal paralysis for the family.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the situation inappropriately left the children in limbo, and directed the Regional Senior Judge to appoint a temporary case management judge until the recusal motion is decided.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support for the parties' 11-year-old son, seeking to impute income to the father in excess of $100,000 and requesting retroactive support dating back to 2013.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the mother's allegations of hidden income and lifestyle-based imputing were unfounded.

The father's income was determined based on his Line 150 tax returns with a modest addition from a personal injury settlement received in 2017.

The court dismissed the mother's disclosure motion and found that no additional disclosure was required.

The court also imposed restrictions on the mother's future access to the court due to her abusive litigation conduct and disproportionate claims.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Akbarali J. on November 12, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $1,500.

This is a costs decision following a contentious family law motion.

Both parties claimed success and sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that neither party was particularly successful, as many issues were not genuinely in dispute or could have been resolved by agreement.

The court considered the parties' conduct under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, noting the respondent's failure to respond to applicant's correspondence and unnecessary barriers to disclosure, which increased costs.

Despite the respondent's subsequent partial concession, the court found her conduct more concerning.

The respondent's claim of inability to pay costs was rejected due to lack of evidence.

The applicant's request for costs related to an abandoned spousal support claim was deferred to the trial judge.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $1,000 in costs.

The applicant sought an urgent hearing and leave to bring a motion regarding suspended access, despite a prior order requiring leave from the case management judge.

The respondent also brought a cross-motion without leave.

The case management judge, Lemay J., granted leave for both motions to proceed, finding a prima facie urgency due to a breached court order and the respondent's explanation.

However, Lemay J. transferred the substantive hearing to Fowler Byrne J. and issued strict procedural directions for future communications and motions, emphasizing the role of the case management judge and warning against contempt for non-compliance.

The Applicant Father sought an urgent motion to resume court-ordered access to his daughter, which the Respondent Mother had unilaterally suspended due to COVID-19 concerns, the child's health, and the Father's alleged alcohol abuse and association with a "drug house." The court found the Mother's unilateral suspension wrongful.

While acknowledging the Mother's concerns, particularly regarding the Father's social distancing and attendance at a questionable residence, the court ordered the immediate recommencement of access with modifications.

These modifications included shortened access time, specific exchange protocols, continued breath sample reporting by the Father, strict adherence to COVID-19 protocols, and a prohibition on attending the "Cliftonvale Residence" without sworn evidence of legitimate work.

The court, acting as case management judge, addressed several outstanding issues in a family law proceeding, including the severing of divorce, production of medical records for the child, a counselling session for the applicant and child, and a sealing order.

The court ordered the divorce severed, mandated production of the child's medical records (rejecting the respondent's obstacles), and ordered a specific counselling session protocol.

A sealing order for the child's medical records was granted, and the decision was anonymized.

The court declined to order production of a specific surveillance video and declined to make an order confirming the withdrawal of spousal support.

Costs were reserved for further submissions due to concerns about both parties' litigation conduct.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an updated section 30 parenting assessment prior to trial.

The applicant father opposed the motion, arguing that the conflict between the parties had not changed and that the assessor could provide updated opinions via oral evidence at trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no significant change in circumstances to justify a further intrusive assessment and noting that the trial judge could adequately determine the issues with the original report and viva voce evidence.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding father.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion finding the respondent in contempt for unilaterally relocating the parties' children and dismissing the respondent's cross-motion.

The court found that the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by willfully breaching a court order and making unfounded allegations of abuse to justify the relocation.

The applicant was awarded costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $11,198.44.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for unilaterally relocating their three children more than 50 kilometres from Hamilton, contrary to a final mediated agreement and court order, and for restricting his access.

The mother brought a cross-motion for custody and transfer of proceedings, asserting she believed the order was withdrawn and alleging an assault by the father.

The court found the mother in contempt, rejected her justifications and assault allegations, and found her actions detrimental to the children's interests.

The court varied the previous order, granting primary residence of the children to the father and ordering an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.