Jaret Moldaver

The parties, who continued to reside in the matrimonial home post-separation, brought competing motions regarding the temporary custody of their children and exclusive possession of the home.

The mother sought exclusive possession due to the toxic home environment adversely affecting the children, while the father sought the pre-trial sale of the home and alleged parental alienation.

The court granted the mother temporary exclusive possession, finding that the high-conflict environment was intolerable and detrimental to the children's best interests.

The father's motion for the pre-trial sale of the home was dismissed to prevent further emotional disruption to the children.

Both parties' requests for psychiatric assessments of the other were also dismissed.

In a high-conflict family law dispute, the applicant father brought a motion alleging the respondent mother was in contempt of prior court orders by refusing access, while the mother brought a motion seeking to vary the order to restrict or supervise the father’s parenting time.

The court was asked to determine interim Christmas holiday parenting time.

Medical evidence concerning the child’s concussion and ongoing recovery created disagreement between the parties regarding physical activity restrictions and compliance with medical guidelines incorporated into a prior order.

The court declined to resolve disputed credibility issues on the paper record but found the father had breached a prior order by allowing the child to engage in physical activity before medical clearance.

Nevertheless, the court held that the child’s best interests required a typical shared holiday schedule and ordered that each parent have one week of Christmas parenting time, subject to travel restrictions and further directions regarding medical consultation and psychological support.

On competing family law motions, each spouse sought an order requiring the other to pay the expenses associated with a jointly occupied matrimonial home.

The court considered its authority under section 24(1)(e) of the Family Law Act to allocate responsibility for repair, maintenance, and liability expenses of a matrimonial home notwithstanding possession.

Both spouses remained living in the home with their children following separation, but the father’s income had significantly decreased while the mother earned substantially more.

The court held that allocation of home expenses between two spouses in joint possession may be appropriate during transitional periods before sale of the home.

Given the parties’ disproportionate financial means, the court ordered the respondent spouse to cover the mortgage, insurance, utilities, and taxes, while the applicant spouse contributed $1,000 per month on a temporary without‑prejudice basis subject to future accounting.

On competing family law motions, each spouse sought an order requiring the other to pay the expenses associated with a jointly occupied matrimonial home.

The court considered its authority under section 24(1)(e) of the Family Law Act to allocate responsibility for repair, maintenance, and liability expenses of a matrimonial home notwithstanding possession.

Both spouses remained living in the home with their children following separation, but the father’s income had significantly decreased while the mother earned substantially more.

The court held that allocation of home expenses between two spouses in joint possession may be appropriate during transitional periods before sale of the home.

Given the parties’ disproportionate financial means, the court ordered the respondent spouse to cover the mortgage, insurance, utilities, and taxes, while the applicant spouse contributed $1,000 per month on a temporary without‑prejudice basis subject to future accounting.

Following an 8‑day motion to change relating to support obligations under a prior arbitration award, the court addressed costs.

The responding party on the motion had been successful in obtaining child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses, and sought full indemnity costs exceeding $340,000.

The court found the moving party acted unreasonably and in bad faith by concealing income, misleading his expert, breaching court orders, and rejecting a reasonable offer to settle.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle of proportionality, the court reduced certain disbursements and paralegal rates but concluded that substantial indemnity costs were justified.

Costs of $297,700.65 were awarded, payable in instalments, with a portion enforceable as part of the support order.

The moving party brought a motion to vary prior arbitration awards and a court order governing child and spousal support, alleging a material change in circumstances based on reduced income from restaurant businesses.

The responding party opposed the motion and argued that the payor continued to divert and conceal income through unreported cash transactions and other financial practices.

After extensive expert accounting evidence, the court found the payor’s financial disclosure unreliable and concluded that significant income should continue to be imputed.

The court held that no material change in circumstances had been established and dismissed the motion to vary.

Income of $335,162 was imputed to the payor, resulting in ongoing child support and spousal support obligations along with reimbursement of section 7 expenses.

After a family law trial in which the respondent’s motion to change parenting arrangements was dismissed, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The successful party sought full recovery costs of over $84,000 based on Rule 18 offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

The court held that the applicant’s final offer satisfied the requirements of Rule 18(14), entitling her to costs to the date of the offer and full recovery thereafter unless the court ordered otherwise.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(11), including success, reasonableness of behaviour, offers to settle, and proportionality of time spent, the court reduced the amount sought as excessive.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs at $58,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

In a family law proceeding concerning child and spousal support, the applicant brought a motion to compel financial disclosure and to strike the respondent’s motion to change an existing support order that had incorporated a prior arbitral award imputing significant income to the respondent.

The respondent asserted a substantially lower income and sought retroactive variation of support, while the applicant alleged the respondent’s income remained significantly higher and sought increased support.

The court reviewed the history of disclosure, expert reports, and arrears of support.

Rather than striking the motion to change, the court directed compliance with disclosure obligations, ordered payment of arrears, scheduled further case management steps, and set the matter down for trial.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded parenting time, including overnight access, with the parties’ young child.

The applicant mother opposed the expansion and brought a cross‑motion seeking dismissal of the motion, temporary custody, and other relief, arguing that the child was not comfortable with overnight visits and required stability.

An Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommended gradual expansion of parenting time leading eventually to overnight visits, although no timeline had been established.

The court found no evidence suggesting that overnight parenting time with the father posed any risk to the child and concluded that progression toward overnights was in the child’s best interests despite the high conflict between the parties.

A staged schedule was ordered gradually expanding the father’s time to include overnights and alternating weekends, while custody was left to be determined at trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The parties continued to reside together with their two children in a highly tense and hostile environment following their separation.

The court considered a psychotherapist's report indicating that the 16-year-old daughter was suffering from anxiety and depression due to the respondent father's behavior, which the court found amounted to psychological assault.

Applying section 24 of the Family Law Act, the court determined it was in the best interests of the children to grant the applicant interim temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking disclosure from the respondent and a non-party family corporation to assist a retained valuator in assessing the respondent’s corporate interest and income for support purposes.

The court held that broad disclosure is appropriate where there are concerns that income from a closely held family business may be understated or manipulated.

Applying the “semblance of relevance” test and emphasizing the importance of full financial disclosure in family law, the court found the requested corporate and personal records relevant to valuation and income analysis.

The court ordered the respondent and the corporation to produce the requested documents and directed that the confidentiality agreement governing disclosure be amended to clarify that it also covered the valuator’s income analysis.

Following earlier motions in a family law proceeding concerning parenting arrangements, the court addressed costs after the parties failed to reach agreement.

The successful party had served a compliant and reasonable offer to settle before the motions and later provided a detailed bill of costs and a further settlement offer regarding costs, both of which went unanswered.

Applying rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered fairness, the parties’ conduct, and the effect of the unaccepted offer to settle.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter.

Total costs were fixed and made payable within sixty days.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased interim parenting time and an order restraining the respondent mother from making major decisions regarding their child without his consent.

The respondent mother sought an increase in temporary child support based on the father's new employment in New York.

The court granted the father's request for increased parenting time, noting the importance of overnight visits for young children to foster attachment.

The court also enjoined the mother from making major decisions without the father's written consent, distinguishing the case from situations where parents cannot communicate.

The mother's request for increased child support was dismissed as the father's potential bonus had not yet been received.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought an adjournment of the respondent’s motion to reduce a temporary spousal support order of $12,000 per month.

The respondent also sought relief including recharacterizing prior payments for tax purposes, disclosure orders, and access to the matrimonial home for appraisal.

The court determined that the issues, particularly the respondent’s income and competing expert evidence, required a longer motion and that questioning and expert review should occur first.

The motion was adjourned and procedural directions were ordered regarding disclosure, expert meetings, and questioning timelines.

On a motion for interim spousal support following a 24‑year marriage, the court considered how to determine income where the payor spouse’s earnings fluctuated significantly due to cyclical real estate development projects.

The applicant argued that support should be based on a multi‑year average exceeding $2 million annually, while the respondent claimed current income of approximately $214,000.

The court rejected both extremes, finding the unusually high income in certain years was anomalous but also concluding the claimed post‑separation income decline was not adequately supported.

Considering historical earnings patterns, capital gains history, and the respondent’s own spending levels, the court imputed income in the range of $700,000–$800,000 for interim purposes.

Interim spousal support was fixed at $25,000 per month and made retroactive to January 1, 2012.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support under s. 33 of the Family Law Act, seeking both ongoing support and retroactive support following the breakdown of a long-term cohabitation relationship.

The applicant also sought an advance payment of $50,000 in interim disbursements to retain a financial expert for trial.

The court dismissed the request for advance disbursements, finding the applicant had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances required to justify such relief or that he would be unable to proceed to trial without it.

The claim for retroactive support was also declined on an interim basis given the proximity of trial.

However, the court found a prima facie case of entitlement to support and ordered interim spousal support of $1,500 per month until trial.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support, disclosure, interim disbursements, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a restraining order.

The respondent conceded entitlement to temporary spousal support but disputed the amount and brought a cross‑motion seeking sale of the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and production of the applicant’s medical records.

The principal issue concerned the respondent’s income, which the applicant alleged was significantly higher than reported due to employment and trust income connected to a family business.

The court held that the respondent bore the onus of providing adequate disclosure regarding business performance, bonus calculations, and potential trust distributions.

Pending proper disclosure, the court ordered temporary spousal support of $12,000 per month based on the respondent’s last disclosed gross income of $431,693 and adjourned the motion for further evidence.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking contribution from the respondent father toward children's special expenses under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines, as well as direct payment pending enforcement by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court considered whether various expenses—including extracurricular activities, swimming, skating, gymnastics, school lunches, and day camp—qualified as reasonable special expenses.

The court held that extracurricular activities and certain program costs were reasonable and consistent with the family's pre‑separation spending patterns, but declined to order contributions for school lunches and previously agreed summer camp costs.

The father was ordered to pay 80% of specified expenses and to contribute a monthly amount toward ongoing extracurricular costs pending trial.

Costs of the motion were awarded partially to the mother.