Jaret N. Moldaver

This motion concerns parenting time for three young children (3-year-old twins and a 2-year-old) following the arrest and subsequent withdrawal of criminal charges against the mother.

The mother sought to vary a temporary parenting order that had limited her to seven hours of supervised parenting time per week.

The father opposed the variation, arguing the mother engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, including orchestrating an elaborate scheme involving impersonation and threats.

The court found insufficient evidence to conclude the mother was responsible for the scheme, but remained concerned about her pattern of fabricating stories about deceased or non-existent children told to multiple individuals.

The court increased the mother's parenting time to include overnight visits supervised by maternal grandparents, while maintaining supervision pending trial.

This is a costs ruling following a complex fourteen-day combined family and civil trial.

The trial involved equalization payment disputes between spouses exceeding $10.5 million, unequal division claims, post-valuation date adjustments, fraud and oppression allegations, and a civil action for fraudulent conveyancing.

The husband was ordered to pay the wife an equalization payment of $1,054,267 and the wife was ordered to pay the husband $1,000,000 for oppression and punitive damages.

The court addressed costs claims from the wife and a third-party defendant, finding the civil action unnecessary and awarding limited costs to the wife for a specific pre-trial motion, while awarding substantial costs to the third-party defendant who successfully defended against fraud allegations.

The decision concerns a motion by Cornel Brenninkmeyer to vary a temporary consent order regarding uncharacterized support payments to Susan (Sam) Makepeace.

The court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances, hardship, urgency, and whether the moving party came to court with clean hands.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a reduction in support payments, but did not find clear hardship.

The order allows for further reduction if the trial is further delayed.

The Respondent father sought unsupervised and increased parenting time, including overnights, and equal parenting time after Labour Day.

The Applicant mother opposed this, requesting the continuation of supervised parenting time and bringing a cross-motion for primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test, granted the father unsupervised daytime parenting time and supervised overnight parenting time, acknowledging his efforts to address past issues while noting serious concerns regarding his criminal history and lack of accountability.

The Applicant's cross-motion for sole decision-making and primary residence was dismissed as premature.

The applicant mother sought supervised parenting time for the respondent father, preservation of cottage sale proceeds, and temporary child and spousal support.

The respondent father cross-moved for unsupervised parenting time.

The court denied the applicant's request for supervised parenting, granting the respondent unsupervised parenting time with a specific schedule.

Issues regarding the cottage property were adjourned to a later date to allow the added respondent (the father's sister, legal owner of the cottage) to make submissions.

Temporary financial orders were made to maintain the status quo, requiring the respondent to pay certain household and vehicle expenses, and an uncharacterized amount of $6,000 per month to the applicant, pending full financial disclosure and a future case conference.

The respondent was also ordered to enroll in the Caring Dads program.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Respondent (Mother) was largely successful on parenting issues and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs, arguing her pre-motion proposals constituted valid offers to settle under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant (Father) contended these proposals were not Rule 18 offers as they predated his motion.

The court found that pre-motion proposals can indeed be valid offers to settle for cost purposes, as Rule 18 allows offers "even before the case has started." The court awarded the Respondent $44,500 in full recovery costs, considering the Applicant's conduct, including attacking the Respondent's mental health and attempting to admit inadmissible surreptitious recordings.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act and Family Law Act due to significant mortgage and property tax arrears, and a civil action initiated by the bank.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it was premature and would prejudice her family law claims, including spousal support and equalization.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding the sale inevitable given the financial circumstances and the bank's actions, and that delaying it would cause further hardship.

The court also set terms for the sale process.

This is a ruling on a motion to disqualify a witness, Gabrielle St. George, in ongoing matrimonial and civil litigation.

Vito Ierullo sought to call Ms. St. George, the estranged sister of Rae Marie Ierullo (referred to as Ms. Adragone), to provide evidence concerning a loan assignment, the transfer of a family home, and allegations of forgery and fraudulent documents.

Rae Marie Ierullo objected, arguing the proposed evidence was largely hearsay, lacked direct knowledge, and was motivated by ill-will.

The court found the evidence to be speculative, based on animus, and largely hearsay, concluding that its admission would unnecessarily expand the scope of the trial into collateral family and estate issues.

The motion to permit Ms. St. George to testify was dismissed.

This is a motion for an interim parenting schedule concerning two children, aged nine and six.

The Applicant Father sought equal parenting time (2-2-5-5 schedule), while the Respondent Mother sought a 60/40 split in her favour (6 nights with Father, 8 nights with Mother every two weeks), along with a mutual right of refusal.

The court found the Mother to be the primary caregiver based on detailed evidence and third-party affidavits, contrasting with the Father's less particularized assertions.

Considering the children's best interests, their strong attachment to the Mother, and the Mother's primary caregiving role, the court granted the Mother's proposed 60/40 parenting schedule on a temporary basis, along with exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the Father on consent.

This mid-trial ruling addresses the qualification of an expert witness, D.J. Myles Martin, proposed by the applicant (Rae Marie Ierullo) in a combined family and civil trial concerning business valuations.

The respondent (Vito Ierullo) challenged the expert's qualifications.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess tests for expert admissibility, considering factors such as formal education, professional qualifications, experience, and independence.

The court declined to qualify the expert, citing his lack of formal CBV accreditation, limited litigation support experience, and an undisclosed social relationship with the applicant, which raised concerns about his objectivity and non-partisanship.

The Applicant mother's motion to bifurcate the trial was settled by consent.

The Respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking leave to compel the immediate partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home or to obtain a $200,000 line of credit secured against his share.

The court dismissed the Respondent's cross-motion, primarily because he failed to obtain prior leave as mandated by a previous court order.

Addressing the merits, the court found that selling the matrimonial home would prejudice the Applicant's claims and was not in the child's best interests.

Furthermore, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to compel the encumbrance of the matrimonial home against the Applicant's objection.

The respondent, Abigail Ruth Pollock, brought a motion to incorporate and enforce paragraph 60 of a final arbitration award (the "Kleinman Award").

The applicant, Eli Tenenbaum, opposed the motion, arguing the award was appealable and did not consider the children's best interests.

The court found that the Kleinman Award met the mandatory conditions for enforcement under the Family Law Act, noting that the time for appeal had elapsed and Eli's claims of attempting to appeal were unsubstantiated.

The court emphasized that the enforcement proceeding is not an opportunity to alter the arbitration award.

The motion to incorporate the award was granted, and the respondent was found entitled to costs.

The applicant father sought to incorporate a separation agreement into a court order, enforce his parenting time, and clarify/change certain terms.

The respondent mother sought the appointment of a parent coordinator (PC).

The court found the mother had unilaterally breached the separation agreement by imposing unwarranted restrictions and supervision on the father's parenting time.

The court appointed the PC but limited its mandate strictly to the terms agreed upon in the separation agreement, rejecting the mother's attempt to expand the PC's authority.

The court granted police enforcement of the parenting time given the mother's chronic non-compliance.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The applicant mother struggled with alcohol abuse, leading to the respondent father becoming the primary caregiver for their three children.

The court maintained the current parenting schedule, with the children residing primarily with the father and the mother having parenting time 5 out of 14 days subject to alcohol monitoring.

The court also resolved complex financial issues, including valuing the father's security business on the date of marriage, determining the parties' incomes for support purposes, and addressing claims of unjust enrichment and resulting trust.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $882,115.16 and retroactive spousal support, while the mother was ordered to pay retroactive section 7 expenses.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the Respondent successfully obtained an order resuming parenting time with the parties' daughter, necessitated by the Applicant's non-compliance with a previous order.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the Respondent to be the successful party on the underlying motion.

The Respondent sought full indemnity costs, while the Applicant sought partial indemnity.

The court denied full indemnity costs, finding no bad faith by the Applicant and noting the Respondent's offer to settle did not meet the criteria for full recovery under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the Respondent partial indemnity costs of $3,000, all-inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion alleging the respondent breached a preservation order.

The respondent filed a cross-motion seeking clarification that the preservation order permitted him to sell real property, provided proceeds were held in trust.

The court ordered the respondent to hold net sale proceeds from two properties in trust and to provide a list of assets for his corporations.

The applicant's request to suspend the listings of two other properties was denied due to insufficient evidence, with the court suggesting the respondent recast his cross-motion for leave to sell if parties could not agree.

The respondent brought an urgent motion to resume parenting time with the parties' daughter, which the applicant had withheld due to COVID-19 concerns.

The applicant sought to suspend the parenting schedule.

The court affirmed that existing parenting orders should continue unless there are compelling reasons for change, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for parental cooperation during the pandemic.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to suspend the schedule and ordered both parties to adhere to the existing agreement and order, along with strict COVID-19 health protocols.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking production and answers to refusals related to the respondent husband's financial disclosure during marriage contract negotiations.

The wife argued that the husband's reliance on his professional advisors, including his lawyer, to prepare his financial disclosure constituted an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege over his lawyer's file.

The court dismissed the wife's motion, holding that merely stating reliance on a lawyer to perform their job in preparing disclosure does not put the legal advice itself in issue, and therefore does not amount to an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege, which is considered to be as close to absolute as possible.