Jaret N. Moldaver

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for various forms of relief.

The applicant sought an advance on equalization, the release of RESP funds, payment of a prior costs award, and an order striking the respondent's pleadings for failure to disclose information regarding his taxi licence.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce, receive an advance on equalization, and remove the joint valuator.

The court granted the applicant a $30,000 advance on equalization, ordered the RESP funds placed in trust, and directed the respondent to pay the valuator's retainer and prior costs from his own funds.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings but restricted his ability to lead valuation evidence at trial.

The respondent's motions were dismissed.

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.

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.

Following settlement of a motion to change child and spousal support at a settlement conference, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had provided financial disclosure supporting a reduction in income months before commencing the motion and had made a compliant offer to settle that closely matched the eventual settlement.

The court held the moving party was the successful party and found the responding party should have accepted the offer earlier after her own expert confirmed the income analysis.

While some of the moving party’s claimed legal fees were found excessive, the court awarded partial recovery including accountant expenses and post-offer costs.

The responding party was ordered to pay costs totaling $18,292.98 plus HST, payable in monthly installments.

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.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion for temporary spousal support in a family law matter.

The applicant (mother) sought temporary spousal support and was awarded $900 per month effective January 1, 2015, though she had requested $1,634 per month.

The respondent (father) opposed the motion and failed to make an offer to settle.

The court found divided success on the motion, with the mother successful in obtaining support but unsuccessful in her attempt to impute additional income to the father.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $5,000, payable at $250 per month, considering the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, the complexity of the issues, and the father's limited financial circumstances.

The mother brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support of $1,698 per month from the father, effective January 1, 2015.

The father argued he had no ability to pay.

The court found the mother had strong compensatory and non-compensatory claims based on a traditional 17-year marriage and significant income disparity.

While acknowledging the father's substantial child support obligations and therapeutic expenses for the children in care of child protective services, the court determined these did not eliminate his spousal support obligations.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $900 per month, representing approximately 40% of the parties' net disposable income after accounting for child support payments and additional child-related expenses.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary an existing child residency schedule to achieve equal parenting time.

The motion judge found that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances under the Gordon v. Goertz test, despite the child's advancing age, the mother's remarriage, and the child's learning disability diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the legal test or her assessment of the evidence.

Following a motion concerning non-compliance with undertakings and arrears of child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party had been largely successful in establishing substantial non‑compliance with undertakings and child support obligations, although not all requested relief was granted.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the parties’ conduct, the importance of the issues, the time spent, and the reasonableness of the claimed legal fees.

While the responding party’s conduct was found to be unreasonable, the evidence did not establish bad faith.

Costs were awarded in a reduced amount payable by instalments.

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.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding involving child and spousal support issues, the court addressed the appropriate costs award under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant achieved partial success, obtaining guideline child support for two children, spousal support in the amount sought, and partial interim fees, but was unsuccessful on disclosure and certain other relief.

The court considered the moderate complexity of the motion, the parties’ conduct, the reasonableness of counsel rates, and the time spent on the matter.

The applicant’s offer to settle did not improve upon the court’s decision and was served too late to engage cost consequences.

Balancing the Rule 24 factors, the court awarded reduced costs to the applicant.

A child protection application brought by a child welfare society seeking temporary care and custody of two children (ages 12 and 9) from their parents.

The father opposed the motion and sought custody with society supervision, while the mother supported the society's position.

The court found that both children had suffered significant emotional harm due to high-conflict parenting, with evidence of parental alienation, emotional abuse, and the father's controlling behavior toward the children and mother.

The court determined that the children could not be adequately protected in either parent's care and ordered temporary placement with the society, with access discretionary to the society.

A payment order was imposed on both parents proportionate to their incomes.

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.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for an annulment.

The parties agreed the marriage was never consummated, but the application judge required independent evidence of incurability.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a reasonable inference of the respondent's psychological inability to consummate the marriage was sufficient to grant the annulment.

Following competing family law motions regarding custody and access, the court determined the issue of costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent was substantially successful in obtaining expanded parenting time including overnight access, telephone access, and shared holidays.

Although both parties made offers to settle, neither met the strict requirements for enhanced cost consequences under Rule 18(14), though they remained relevant to the court’s discretion.

The court considered proportionality, the importance of the parenting issues, the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, and concerns about excessive time spent by the respondent’s legal team.

Costs were awarded to the respondent but significantly reduced from the amount sought.

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.