Jaret N. Moldaver

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.

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.

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 respondent father brought a motion to stay new orders issued by an Ontario Court of Justice judge pending appeal.

The motions judge had initially ordered the child to attend the father's preferred school, but later issued new orders changing the school to the mother's preference after realizing she had not considered all the evidence.

The motions judge also engaged in ex parte communications with the mother's counsel.

The Superior Court granted the stay, finding a strong likelihood of success on appeal due to jurisdictional errors, breach of natural justice, and reasonable apprehension of bias, and ordered the child to return to the father's preferred school pending the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

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 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.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

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.

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 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.

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 plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the March 19, 2020 order of Moore J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the defendant in the amount of $4,500.

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.

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.