Jasmine T. Akbarali

Following motions for exclusive possession, parenting, and support, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $35,000, while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on exclusive possession and the choice of assessor, though success was divided on parenting and support.

Accounting for the divided success and an unnecessary first attendance, the court awarded the applicant costs of $12,000.

The applicant wife sought spousal support, child support, and a divorce, while the respondent husband sought child support, equalization, and a restraining order.

The parties had previously agreed to sever the divorce and transfer a portion of the husband's pension to the wife.

The court found the wife was entitled to prospective spousal support of $623 monthly due to her disability and financial need, but denied retroactive support to avoid hardship to the husband.

The husband's claims for child support and repayment of alleged loans were dismissed.

The court also ordered the wife to list her properties in the Philippines for sale, with the proceeds to be shared equally.

The appellant father and respondent mother both brought motions to introduce fresh evidence in an appeal from an arbitrator's decision declining to order their children be vaccinated.

The court applied a relaxed Palmer test, given the case involved the best interests of children.

The court admitted the father's fresh expert evidence regarding vaccine safety and the mother's genetic variation, as well as evidence challenging the credibility of one of the mother's experts.

The court also admitted the mother's fresh evidence from the children's family doctor regarding their current health and the psychological impact of the litigation.

A temporary publication ban on the children's health information was made permanent.

The applicant in a high-conflict family law proceeding brought a motion for $425,000 in interim disbursements to fund legal fees and expert reports (valuation and income).

The respondent, a wealthy individual with complex financial affairs, conceded his ability to pay spousal support but disputed the necessity of the expert fees.

The court found that a valuation report was necessary to test the respondent's claim that his net family property was zero, but an income report was unnecessary given his concession on means.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $200,000 in interim disbursements and awarded $18,000 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant sought interim child and spousal support, and the respondent brought a cross-motion for parenting orders.

The court previously granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a temporary shared parenting schedule.

This endorsement addresses the remaining support issues, the respondent's income for support purposes, and the selection of a s. 30 assessor.

The court determined the respondent's income for support purposes based on his investment portfolio's net equity and historical rate of return.

Interim set-off child support and mid-range spousal support were ordered, with the applicant taking over matrimonial home expenses.

The court also ordered Dr. Morris to conduct the s. 30 assessment due to Dr. Polak's unavailability.

Procedural orders for document production, questioning, and a settlement conference were made on consent.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding parenting time, custody, child support, and the sale of their jointly owned properties.

The applicant father sought expanded parenting time and the sale of the matrimonial home and cottage, while the respondent mother sought temporary sole custody, child support based on an imputed income of $234,500, and exclusive possession of the home.

The court granted the father's motion, expanding his parenting time, imputing his income at $40,000 for child support purposes, and ordering the immediate sale of the properties due to the parties' inability to afford them.

The mother's claims for sole custody and higher child support were dismissed, and she was ordered to pay $19,000 in costs.

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of decision-making, parenting time, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, property division, and support.

The court ordered joint decision-making for the two younger children, and joint decision-making for the oldest child with the applicant having final say.

The children will reside primarily with the applicant, with the respondent having alternate weekends and Wednesday evenings with the younger children.

The applicant was granted exclusive possession of the matrimonial home until July 2021, after which it will be sold.

The respondent's income was imputed at $45,000 for child support purposes, and the applicant's claim for spousal support was dismissed.

The parties separated but continued to live in the matrimonial home with their 11-year-old child.

Due to escalating conflict, both parties brought motions seeking physical separation; the applicant mother sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, while the respondent father sought a temporary nesting order.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession, finding that a nesting order would perpetuate conflict and that the father had superior financial means to secure alternative accommodation.

The court also ordered a week-about shared parenting schedule, finding it in the child's best interests to maintain maximum contact with both capable parents.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an updated section 30 parenting assessment prior to trial.

The applicant father opposed the motion, arguing that the conflict between the parties had not changed and that the assessor could provide updated opinions via oral evidence at trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no significant change in circumstances to justify a further intrusive assessment and noting that the trial judge could adequately determine the issues with the original report and viva voce evidence.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding father.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion for a publication ban and sealing order in an appeal concerning child vaccination.

The mother, who brought the original motion, sought costs, arguing the father's publicizing of the case necessitated the motion and increased her expenses.

The father argued for no costs or costs payable to him, asserting he protected the children's identity and consented to much of the relief.

The court found that while the mother achieved some confidentiality protections, she did not obtain all the relief sought (e.g., sealing the file).

The court concluded that the motion would have been necessary regardless of the father's actions due to the open court principle and the need to notify media.

Therefore, the father's behaviour did not cause or increase the mother's costs, and no costs were ordered for the motion.

The children's mother (L.K.) brought a motion for a publication ban, file initialization, and sealing of the court file in an appeal concerning the vaccination status of the parties' children.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test, finding a serious risk of harm and stigmatization to the children if their identities were revealed.

A tailored publication ban was ordered, prohibiting the publication of identifying information for the children (names, dates of birth, addresses, schools, genders, images, voices, and most health information, except their unvaccinated status) and the parties (names, voices, images).

The court also ordered that the title of proceedings and public documents use initials only, and that future publications not link to non-compliant prior reports.

The request to seal the court file and retroactively amend existing publications was dismissed due to lack of evidentiary basis and practical unenforceability, respectively.

This trial decision addresses complex family law issues following a three-and-a-half-year marriage, including parenting and decision-making for the parties' biological child (G), whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent for the applicant's two older children (R and F), child support, spousal support, and property division.

The court found joint custody unfeasible due to the respondent's lack of cooperation and self-serving actions, establishing a parallel parenting regime with the applicant having primary decision-making for education, health, and extra-curriculars, and the respondent for religion.

The respondent was found to stand in the place of a parent for R and F, leading to a child support obligation for all three children, albeit reduced for R and F due to the marriage's short duration.

The applicant was found entitled to compensatory spousal support for five years.

Crucially, the respondent's claim for an equitable interest in the matrimonial home was dismissed due to his "unclean hands" stemming from significant financial disclosure failings and litigation misconduct.

An equalization payment and occupation rent were ordered in favour of the applicant, along with compensation for chattels.

This endorsement addresses a request for inter-jurisdictional communication from a Michigan court regarding a protective proceeding involving children whose custody was previously determined in Ontario in 2008.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, through J.T. Akbarali J., agrees to facilitate communication with the Michigan court, applying by analogy an existing protocol for inter-jurisdictional child abduction cases.

The communication will be limited to procedural matters, and the Ontario court requests clarification from Michigan regarding the necessity of Ontario's involvement, the parties' jurisdictional positions, and additional background information about the children's residence.

The applicant wife sought extensive financial disclosure and interim security for spousal support, while the respondent husband also sought disclosure and resisted some of the wife's requests, particularly concerning disputed separation dates and solicitor-client privilege.

The court made conditional orders for disclosure, requiring third-party real estate appraisals over MPAC assessments, and addressed the timing of tracing reports.

On privilege, the court found the wife had waived privilege over a former lawyer's file and an email chain by placing her state of mind and the communication in issue, but denied her request for the husband's legal consultation dates as irrelevant.

For interim security, the court ordered the husband to designate the wife as a revocable beneficiary of $500,000 in life insurance, with an option for the wife to increase it to $1 million by paying additional premiums.

The husband was deemed more successful, and the wife was ordered to pay him $12,500 in costs.

The parties settled all outstanding issues in their family litigation except for costs.

The respondent sought costs, arguing success based on settlement offers and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant argued against awarding costs, or alternatively, for costs in her favour, citing the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court examined the jurisprudence on awarding costs after a global settlement, contrasting approaches that encourage summary determination of costs post-settlement with those that caution against it due to the difficulty in assessing "success" without judicial fact-finding.

Adopting the latter view, the court held that costs should not be awarded after a settlement unless there are compelling reasons, such as clear capitulation or unreasonable behaviour.

Upon review of the parties' offers and conduct, the court found no compelling circumstances to justify a costs award, noting that the settlement reflected divided success and compromise.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for the proceeding, including the costs submissions.

The court addressed cross-motions to vary parenting time, custody, and child support arrangements for three children.

It found both parents' high-conflict behaviour detrimental to the children's well-being.

The eldest child was granted autonomy in decision-making and parenting time.

A week-about schedule was ordered for the two younger children, with the middle child also granted decision-making autonomy for major issues, while the youngest's major decisions required parental agreement or court intervention.

Therapeutic interventions were mandated for the parents and children, and strict orders were issued to prevent the mother's partner from having contact with the children due to safety concerns.

Prospective child support was adjusted upwards for the father, reflecting the new parenting schedule and income disparities, but retroactive adjustments were denied.

Section 7 expenses were re-apportioned.

No damages or costs were awarded.

The case management judge issued a procedural endorsement following a case conference that the respondent father failed to attend.

The endorsement details a long history of high-conflict family litigation, marked by the father's repeated breaches of court orders, failure to pay support, and alienation of the children from the applicant mother.

The judge noted the father's misuse of judicial resources through numerous urgent and meritless motions.

To control the court's process and protect the children, the judge ordered that neither party may bring further motions without prior leave obtained at a case conference.

The judge also ordered the father to arrange for after-care therapy and warned of severe sanctions, including contempt or striking of pleadings, if he continued to flout court orders.

The applicant husband sought an order for the respondent wife to undergo a capacity assessment due to concerns about her mental well-being and its impact on her parenting and participation in the proceedings.

The wife admitted to a delusional disorder but argued it did not impair her judgment.

The court granted the order for a capacity assessment under both s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and s. 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, finding reasonable grounds to believe her capacity was in question and relevant to material parenting issues.

The court also extended interim sole custody to the husband and dispensed with the wife's consent for medical treatment for their child, while requiring the husband to keep the wife informed and consult her.

The applicant sought summary judgment declaring his business properties were not "community property" under Ontario law and an order to remove a lis pendens registered by the respondent in Arizona.

He also sought to strike the respondent's equitable claims for pleading deficiencies.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for a preservation order over the Arizona assets.

The court declared that Ontario is not a community property jurisdiction, dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding equitable claims but granted leave for the respondent to amend her pleadings, ordered the respondent to remove the lis pendens, and ordered the release of escrow funds to the applicant's business, finding no risk of asset depletion to warrant a preservation order.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The court determined the costs of an appeal, a motion to set an appeal date, and a motion for fresh evidence in a family law dispute.

The appellant was awarded costs for the scheduling motion and the appeal, discounted for divided success, as he succeeded in setting aside the parenting award but not the financial issues.

The respondent was awarded costs for her substantially successful motion to admit fresh evidence.

The costs were netted against each other, resulting in the respondent owing the appellant $16,691.57.