Jaret Moldaver

The moving party mother sought an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' three-year-old child from Toronto to Calgary, pending a final trial.

The mother, who had been the child's primary caregiver since separation, had secured a significant career opportunity in Calgary.

The responding party father, who exercised limited supervised parenting time due to severe and ongoing substance abuse issues, opposed the move.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and the factors for interim relocation, finding a strong probability that the mother's position would prevail at trial.

The court concluded that the move would not significantly impact the young child and granted the interim relocation, establishing a supervised parenting schedule for the father.

In a complex, combined family and civil proceeding, the husband brought motions to further amend his pleadings and compel third-party financial disclosure shortly before a rescheduled trial.

The court dismissed the majority of the requested amendments, finding them to be an attempt to retool his narrative and expand the issues on the eve of trial.

The court ordered the third parties to file an affidavit regarding the availability of the requested records but relieved them from the balance of the summons.

Finally, the court ordered the wife to pay $40,000 in costs thrown away for a previously adjourned trial date.

The moving party in a family law proceeding brought a Form 14B motion seeking financial disclosure from the responding party to support a claim for a reduction in spousal support based on a material change in circumstances.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing that a Form 14B motion was inappropriate for this request.

The court held that the motion was procedural and appropriate for a Form 14B motion, and ordered the responding party to provide the requested financial disclosure, including bank statements and property documentation.

No costs were awarded as the motion might have been avoided with better communication between counsel.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim parenting orders regarding their two youngest children.

The applicant mother sought primary care of the youngest child with conditions on the respondent father's parenting time, citing concerns about his admitted history of sexual addiction and inappropriate behaviour.

The respondent sought equal parenting time on a week-about basis.

The court granted the applicant primary care of the youngest child, finding it consistent with the status quo and the child's best interests.

The court expanded the respondent's parenting time but imposed conditions prohibiting him from keeping pornographic material where the child may be and from discussing his mental health or sexual behaviour with the child.

Parenting time for the older child was ordered to be in accordance with his wishes.

Following an urgent motion where the applicant was granted primary residency of the child, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $30,000, while the respondent argued she should recover 50% of her own costs.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, noting the respondent's unreasonable conduct in abruptly enforcing a stale order and making unsupported allegations.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court ordered the respondent to pay $25,000 in costs to the applicant, deductible from ongoing support payments if unpaid.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child support.

The applicant father sought to reduce his child support obligation after losing his job, while the respondent mother sought to enforce the terms of their separation agreement, which calculated support based on the prior year's income.

The court found that the applicant's job loss constituted a material change in circumstances and temporarily varied the agreement to base ongoing support on his current estimated income.

However, the court also ordered the applicant to pay $34,405 in retroactive child support to account for significant increases in his income in 2019 and 2020 that had not been properly adjusted under the agreement.

Following a successful motion for exclusive possession of a property, the applicant sought costs.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful, had made reasonable offers to settle that matched the final order, and behaved reasonably throughout.

Conversely, the respondent behaved unreasonably and failed to make any offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $32,650.00.

The applicant father sought to set aside a domestic contract resolving child support and parenting issues, arguing the respondent mother repudiated the agreement through multiple breaches, including interfering with access and violating confidentiality provisions.

The corporate applicant, controlled by the father, also sought to enforce a mortgage on the mother's home.

The court found that while the mother breached certain access and confidentiality terms, her conduct did not amount to a repudiation or fundamental breach of the agreement as a whole.

The court also dismissed the mortgage enforcement action, finding the mother was not in default and was entitled to exercise her option under the agreement to redeem the mortgage.

The applications to set aside the agreement and enforce the mortgage were dismissed.

The applicant sought an order for exclusive possession of a property solely owned by him, where his former common-law partner and their children resided.

A previous order allowed the respondent to remain if she assumed responsibility for a collateral mortgage and brought a spousal support motion.

The respondent failed to meet these conditions and sought to set them aside under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to set aside the conditions, finding no fraud or mistake, and granted the applicant exclusive possession, ordering the respondent to vacate within 60 days.

The wife was largely successful on a motion for interim disbursements under the OBCA, temporary spousal support, and further financial disclosure.

Both parties sought costs of the motion.

The court found the wife was the successful party and that the husband's behavior regarding disclosure was unreasonable.

After considering the parties' offers to settle and the proportionality of the fees, the court awarded the wife costs of $97,523.88, representing 65% of her actual costs.

The costs were ordered to be paid equally by the husband personally and the corporations he controls.

Following a motion for temporary child and spousal support where success was divided, both parties sought costs.

The applicant husband had successfully established a prima facie entitlement to spousal support and obtained a temporary support order, despite the respondent wife's position that no support should be ordered.

The court found the husband was the successful party on the most important issues.

After considering the parties' behaviour, offers to settle, and the proportionality of the fees, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $33,000 to the applicant.

The moving party wife sought interim costs and disbursements of $500,000 to fund her family law and oppression remedy claims against the responding party husband, who controlled the family's closely-held corporations.

She also sought temporary spousal support and an order compelling the husband to answer undertakings and refusals from his questioning.

The court awarded $250,000 in interim costs under the OBCA as an advance against her shareholdings, finding her oppression claim had sufficient merit and she lacked liquid resources.

The court also ordered the husband to pay $3,000 per month in temporary spousal support to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes, and compelled him to answer the majority of the outstanding undertakings and refusals.

The applicant husband brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent wife, a law firm partner, brought a cross-motion seeking a regime where she paid no support but covered all housing and child expenses.

The court imputed the wife's income at $1,076,652 based on her firm's projections, despite Covid-19 uncertainties.

Applying section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court modified the strict set-off amount to account for the wife's significantly higher housing costs.

The court also found the husband established a prima facie needs-based entitlement to temporary spousal support to maintain the family's accustomed lifestyle.

The wife was ordered to pay $6,714.50 monthly in child support and $5,567 monthly in spousal support.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim relief following their separation.

The court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, finding that the applicant's proposed increase in overnight visits was not in the young children's best interests at this time.

The court declined to order a s. 30 assessment due to potential delay.

For interim support, the applicant's income was set at $300,000 based on his expert's report, and the respondent's imputed income was set at $25,000.

The respondent's request for a $108,000 interim disbursement was denied; instead, the court ordered the parties to secure a line of credit against the matrimonial home to fund litigation and private school expenses.

The respondent was granted interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting schedule for the parties' child, following the release of a Section 30 assessment report.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the current schedule or implement Phase 1 of the assessor's recommendations.

The court found compelling reasons to change the temporary order, noting the high conflict between the parties and the stress caused by transitions.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered a 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule and set out detailed terms for transitions, communication, and holidays.

The Applicant sought costs following a long motion for temporary child and spousal support, interim exclusive possession, and interim disbursements.

The Applicant was largely successful on the key issues of income determination and exclusive possession, while the Respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.

The court found the Respondent's offer to settle unreasonable as it failed to address his income, a key issue.

The court awarded the Applicant partial indemnity costs of $60,000, representing approximately two-thirds of her partial indemnity costs, with the remaining one-third related to parenting issues deferred to the trial judge.

The applicant husband brought a motion seeking the release of $1M from the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home, as well as the repayment of several small loans.

The respondent wife opposed the motion, arguing that the $1M request had already been dealt with in a prior consent order that required the husband to post a letter of credit, which he failed to do.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding that he could not reargue an issue settled by a temporary consent order without bringing a proper motion to vary.

The court also dismissed the balance of the relief, holding that the minor financial disputes should be determined at trial.

Costs of $12,000 were awarded to the successful respondent.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home following her arrest for allegedly assaulting the respondent father.

The father brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession.

The court found that it was in the 15-year-old child's best interests to remain in the home pending its sale to minimize disruption.

The court dismissed both motions for exclusive possession and instead ordered a nesting arrangement where the mother resides in the home full-time except for alternate weekends when the father resides there.

A mutual restraining order was also issued.

Following a ruling granting the respondent wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and temporary custody of the children, the court determined costs.

The wife had served an offer to settle, while the applicant husband had not.

The court emphasized the importance of offers to settle in family law proceedings, even for litigants of modest means.

The wife was awarded $12,500 in costs, to be paid from the husband's share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home or credited against any equalization payment.

The applicant husband brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged final settlement agreement reached during a four-way meeting.

The respondent wife opposed the motion, arguing no final agreement was reached.

The court reviewed three different draft documents and noted significant discrepancies regarding essential terms such as child support, section seven expenses, life insurance, and pension division.

The court concluded there was no meeting of the minds and dismissed the motion for summary judgment, further finding that the issues were too complex for a mini-trial.