Jas Dhaliwal

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking sole temporary custody of the parties' seven-year-old daughter, a restraining order against the father, and a no-access order.

The father opposed the motion and sought a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement.

The court found the mother's evidence of sustained spousal abuse credible, including detailed photographic evidence of injuries.

The father's denials were undermined by his proven falsehood regarding studded rings and his evasive responses to serious allegations.

The court granted sole temporary custody to the mother with highly supervised access for the father, a no-contact order, and a non-removal order, finding that the father's violence and abuse rendered him unsuitable for shared parenting at this stage.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking compliance with information-sharing provisions of a final order related to the parties' four children.

The motion was dismissed due to improper affidavit evidence, as the applicant relied on affidavits from lawyers who lacked personal knowledge of the contentious facts, violating rules of evidence.

The court strongly disapproved of this practice, emphasizing that parties should file their own affidavits.

While the motion was dismissed, the issues raised were permitted to be addressed at a pre-existing trial.

The respondent was awarded costs for the motion.

Following a complex motion where the applicant was entirely successful in imputing income and obtaining child and spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery of $94,373.45, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent's defiant, uninformative, and misleading approach to disclosure constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

However, noting the applicant's bill of costs lacked sufficient particularity and applying principles of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $39,550, with $31,640 enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant sought child and spousal support, and interim disbursements for legal fees and a business valuator, while the respondent cross-motioned for access and Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement.

The court imputed an annual income of $150,000 to the respondent for support purposes, finding a pattern of non-disclosure, lavish lifestyle, and complex financial arrangements.

The court ordered retroactive child and spousal support, and interim disbursements for the applicant.

The respondent's motions for access and OCL involvement were dismissed due to serious concerns about his mental health, violent history, and lack of insight.

The Applicant sought to remove the Respondent's counsel, Mr. Salvatore Mannella, from the record, alleging he was a key witness regarding the Respondent's alleged non-disclosure in a previous separation agreement proceeding and had intimate knowledge of family businesses.

The Respondent opposed, arguing privilege, availability of evidence from other sources, and prematurity.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, emphasizing the reluctance to interfere with choice of counsel, the privileged nature of the information sought, and the availability of alternative disclosure methods.

This trial decision addresses financial issues arising from a marital breakdown, including equalization of net family properties, child support, spousal support, and retroactive support claims.

While custody was resolved, the court determined the equalization payment owed by the husband to the wife, established the parties' qualifying incomes for support purposes, and assessed the wife's entitlement to spousal support, including whether income should be imputed to her.

The court largely dismissed the wife's substantial claim for retroactive spousal support due to the payor's financial hardship and the claimant's insufficient efforts towards self-sufficiency, but awarded adjusted retroactive child support based on the payor's actual income.

In a high-conflict family law dispute following a long-term marriage, the applicant sought extensive interim relief including the appointment of a receiver, interim disbursements, support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent's financial circumstances were complex, involving multiple corporations and a significant pending tax liability.

The court declined to appoint a receiver but ordered the appointment of a joint expert to determine the respondent's income, requiring the respondent to pay the $50,000 retainer.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $25,000 in interim disbursements to level the playing field, awarded interim child and spousal support based on an imputed income, and granted the applicant temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.