Jeff Rechtshaffen

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, both parties sought leave to bring motions despite a prior order prohibiting further motions without leave.

The applicant father sought leave to amend his pleadings to request equal parenting time and an order for a third Voice of the Child Report (VOCR).

The respondent mother sought leave to bring motions for interim support and financial disclosure.

The court granted the father's requests, allowing the amendments and ordering a third VOCR, noting the child's right to have her voice heard.

The mother's requests for interim relief were dismissed as they were better suited for the impending trial.

The respondent husband brought a motion to vary a preservation order under section 12 of the Family Law Act to allow him to obtain a mortgage to close the purchase of a pre-construction condominium.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, citing the husband's failure to disclose significant assets, including foreign bank accounts and real estate, and his history of transferring funds out of the country.

Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions, the court found a serious question to be tried regarding the equalization payment, a risk of irreparable harm due to potential dissipation of assets, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The motion to vary the preservation order was dismissed.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and an order prohibiting the respondent husband from obtaining further orders until he satisfied outstanding undertakings.

The court found the respondent failed to make sufficient efforts to comply with undertakings to produce contact information and mortgage applications.

The court ordered the respondent to take specific steps to obtain the documents and prohibited him from seeking further orders until the mortgage applications were produced.

The court also found the applicant established a prima facie case for interim spousal support, imputed an income of $300,000 to the respondent, and ordered him to pay $1,790 per month.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, both parties brought motions regarding parenting and access to their two teenage children.

The applicant father sought to enforce access and mandate therapy, while the respondent mother sought to suspend access and obtain a Voice of the Child Report.

The court dismissed the mother's motions, finding that a Voice of the Child Report would only subject the children to further manipulation given the extreme parental conflict.

The court ordered the children to continue therapy under strict non-interference conditions and directed the matter to proceed to an expedited trial.

The applicant sought costs following a motion for interim spousal and child support and interim disbursements.

Although the respondent was successful on the motion, the court found that the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, including withholding critical information about an income analysis and making an unreasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 in favour of the applicant.

The applicant sought costs following a motion for interim spousal and child support and interim disbursements.

Although the respondent was technically successful on the motion, the court found that the respondent's conduct, including withholding critical information about an income analysis and making an unreasonable offer to settle, tempered the presumption of costs in his favour.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 to the applicant.

The father appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody to the mother with minimal access to the father.

Following the trial, the order was stayed, and the parties reverted to a shared parenting arrangement.

Fresh evidence, including multiple updated Office of the Children's Lawyer reports, demonstrated that the parties' communication had significantly improved following counseling and that the child strongly preferred spending equal time with both parents.

The court set aside the trial judgment, finding it was no longer in the child's best interests, and ordered joint custody with a shared parenting schedule.

In a family law proceeding involving claims for equalization and financial disclosure, the respondent husband brought a motion seeking to remove his parents and brother‑in‑law as additional respondents.

The applicant alleged that these individuals participated in arrangements to conceal the husband’s income and assets, including property purchases and financial transfers through various accounts.

The court held that there was sufficient evidence suggesting co‑mingling of funds and potential trust arrangements to justify their continued participation as parties.

The court also noted that the motion was improperly brought by the husband rather than the additional respondents themselves and that no authority under the Family Law Rules permitted their removal on the basis argued.

The motion to remove the additional respondents was dismissed.