Jeffrey I. Rechtshaffen

The applicant father brought a motion for an order requiring the respondent mother to provide outstanding financial disclosure, including corporate financial statements and an updated Form 13.1 Financial Statement.

The court found that the respondent was not required to provide corporate statements for a partial fiscal year but ordered her to provide the statement for the completed fiscal year and an updated financial statement with proof of year-to-date income.

The court also admonished the respondent for uploading unfiled materials to Case Center and awarded costs of $4,000 to the applicant.

The applicant's law firm brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record and to deduct its outstanding legal fees from settlement funds held in trust.

The respondent had deposited the funds with the law firm on the strict undertaking that they be held without deduction until the applicant signed a formal separation agreement.

The court granted the removal but dismissed the request to deduct fees, finding that the law firm was bound by its undertaking to the respondent.

The court ordered the full settlement amount to be paid into court pending execution of the agreement.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Berge Marcarian from the trial judge’s determination of the date of separation in his marriage to Karen Nairi Kassabian.

The trial judge found the date of separation to be May 16, 2021, as asserted by the wife, rather than December 10, 2014, as claimed by the husband.

The appellate court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings or application of the law, and that her reasons were sufficient.

The decision provides a comprehensive review of the legal principles and factors relevant to determining the date of separation in family law, emphasizing the objective, fact-driven nature of the analysis and the high deference owed to trial judges on such determinations.

This is an appeal from a family law trial decision concerning spousal support, child support, equalization, and unjust enrichment.

The appellant raised eight grounds of appeal, grouped into errors in income imputation for both parties, errors in equalization payment calculation (including business valuation and a marriage-date account receivable), and the dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred in disallowing a marriage-date deduction of $248,567 in the equalization calculation.

All other grounds of appeal, including those related to income imputation and the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, were dismissed.

The respondent's motion for fresh evidence was also dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to divided success.

The Applicant wife and Respondent husband, who are married, brought cross-motions concerning the arrears on three mortgages registered on their jointly owned property.

Each party accused the other of misappropriating funds leading to the defaults.

The Applicant sought a preservation order for the property and interim uncharacterized support.

The Respondent sought reimbursement of funds from the Applicant.

The court found both parties responsible for the arrears.

The Applicant was ordered to return $50,000 she unilaterally withdrew from a joint account, and the Respondent was ordered to cover the remaining outstanding mortgage payments.

Future mortgage payments were to be jointly shared.

The Applicant's requests for a preservation order and interim support were dismissed without prejudice, as the record was insufficient for interim relief and the support issue required a case conference.

The Applicant's request for a full accounting from the Respondent regarding construction costs was granted.

Parties were ordered to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The appellants, a husband and his brother, appealed a trial judge's equalization payment order to the wife, arguing errors in weighing factors under s. 10.1(4) of the Family Law Act regarding an immediate lump sum transfer from the husband's pension, and incorrect prejudgment interest calculation.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, upholding the trial judge's findings that the wife's pension waiver was under duress, the husband and his brother acted in bad faith, and the husband fraudulently conveyed property.

The trial judge's holistic review of financial circumstances and the decision to order an immediate lump sum transfer for equalization were affirmed as fair.

The prejudgment interest calculation from the date of separation was also upheld.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The case determined the date of separation for a married couple, which was crucial for the limitation period of an equalization claim under the Family Law Act.

The applicant (Wife) asserted a later separation date (May 16, 2021), while the respondent (Husband) argued for an earlier date (December 10, 2014).

The court analyzed the parties' conduct and intent, applying factors from case law regarding living separate and apart while cohabiting.

The court found that despite a decline in intimacy and marital satisfaction, neither party took unequivocal steps to end the marriage until the applicant's clear communication in May 2021.

The Applicant father sought to reduce longstanding s.7 expense arrears owed for his two adult children.

The Respondent mother brought a cross-motion to update and fix the arrears based on actual expenses, including post-secondary studies, and for costs.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding he had not diligently pursued variation in Canada despite being aware of his obligations.

The court granted the Respondent's cross-motion, fixing the s.7 arrears at $83,432.08 plus interest, and ordered payment of previously awarded costs with interest, all collectible as child support.

In an uncontested trial following the striking of the Respondent's pleadings, the Applicant sought a declaration of resulting trust over the matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, resolution of retroactive support claims, and a divorce.

The court found that the matrimonial home was held in a resulting trust for the Applicant, as she had made all financial contributions and title was placed in the Respondent's name for liability purposes.

The court determined that the Applicant had significantly overpaid spousal support and dismissed all retroactive support claims by setting them to zero.

A divorce was granted, and the Applicant was awarded fixed costs.

The parties separated after a 23-year marriage.

The applicant sought spousal support, child support, equalization of net family property, and a trust interest in the respondent's business based on unjust enrichment.

The court imputed income to both parties, awarding spousal and child support based on those imputed incomes.

The court preferred the respondent's expert valuation of his business at nil and dismissed the applicant's claims for unequal division of property and unjust enrichment.

Equalization was ordered with a 25% notional disposition cost applied to the respondent's RRSPs.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court awarded the applicant $20,000 in costs, inclusive of HST, payable within 30 days.

The decision considered the respondent's unreasonable conduct, including his failure to provide adequate income disclosure and consistent underpayment of support, which necessitated the applicant's extensive efforts to prove his income.

The court applied Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, emphasizing the objective of fixing a reasonable, fair, and proportionate amount of costs rather than merely actual costs incurred.

This motion concerned temporary child and spousal support.

The applicant sought support based on an imputed income for the respondent, alleging significant non-disclosure and misleading statements regarding his business interests and assets.

The court found the respondent's evidence untruthful and incomplete, particularly concerning his hotel ownership and capital gains.

Consequently, the court imputed an income of $440,862 CND to the respondent for 2023, based on the family's pre-separation lifestyle and the respondent's current expenses.

The court ordered ongoing child and spousal support, along with retroactive payments for the period of January to September 2023.

The respondent mother brought a motion for security for costs regarding the appellant father's appeal of a summary judgment order that granted her final decision-making authority and restricted his parenting time.

The Court of Appeal found good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, as the father had not opposed the relief sought at the summary judgment motion and failed to file his materials on time.

Finding that the father had insufficient assets to pay a costs order, the court ordered him to post $18,000 in security for costs and stayed the appeal until payment.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of M.D. Faieta J. dated September 12, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,167.

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.

The respondent estate trustee brought a motion to question the applicant's former family law counsel regarding the applicant's state of mind and receipt of legal advice prior to signing a separation agreement.

The applicant sought to set aside the agreement on grounds of duress and lack of independent legal advice, but opposed the questioning, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the applicant impliedly waived privilege by putting her state of mind and lack of legal advice at issue.

The court ordered the applicant's former counsel to attend for questioning and limited the questioning of the deceased's former counsel to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement.

In this family law matter, the Applicant mother sought a psychological/developmental assessment for the two children, while the Respondent father sought expanded parenting time and restrictions on changes to the children's residence or school.

The court dismissed both motions.

The mother's request for an assessment was denied as it was deemed an indirect attempt to circumvent a prior court order for family reintegration therapy, which had not occurred due to the mother's actions.

The father's request for expanded parenting time was denied as it was not considered in the children's best interests to experiment with new arrangements so close to the upcoming trial, and the evidence regarding the children's wishes was conflicting and untested.

The court emphasized maintaining the status quo until trial.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the April 22, 2021 decision of G.A. MacPherson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed in the amount of $4,700.