Jeffrey I. Rechtshaffen

The applicant brought a motion seeking to find the respondent in contempt of two previous court orders regarding the preservation of business assets and the transfer of $160,000.

The court found that while the respondent breached the orders, he could not be found in contempt because one order was for the payment of money, and the other breaches were not deliberate due to COVID-19 business closures.

However, under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to transfer the $160,000 into trust within 30 days, failing which his answer would be struck.

The court also granted the applicant's request for third-party banking records.

The applicant father brought motions to enforce a 2016 Offer to Settle for shared parenting and to strike certain paragraphs and exhibits from the respondent mother's affidavit, alleging breaches of confidentiality provisions under the Child and Family Services Act and a prior court order.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to permit the use of those documents and sought a s.30 assessment or, alternatively, the appointment of private counsel for the children.

The court dismissed the father's motion to enforce the Offer to Settle, finding it unreasonable given the children's changed circumstances and the high parental conflict.

The father's motion to strike the confidential material from the mother's affidavit was granted for the purpose of the current motion, but access to the protection file for trial was preserved.

The mother's motion for a s.30 assessment was dismissed, but her request for the appointment of private counsel for the children was granted, with costs to be shared by the parties.

The respondent, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), brought a motion to set aside the corollary relief of a default divorce order obtained by the applicant.

The PGT argued that the respondent, who has a history of mental illness, lacked the capacity to instruct counsel or understand the implications of not responding to the original application.

The court considered the respondent's fluctuating mental health, the applicant's knowledge of her condition, and the need for procedural and substantive fairness under the Family Law Rules.

The court granted the motion to set aside the corollary relief, ordered the production of counselling records to determine the correct valuation date, but dismissed requests for a non-depletion order and an immediate increase in spousal support.

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 plaintiff, Devlan Construction Ltd., sought costs after successfully obtaining summary judgment against the defendant, 2345171 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Guelph Medical Imaging, for $105,599.74.

Devlan requested costs of $61,158.24 on a substantial indemnity basis or $50,965.19 on a partial indemnity scale.

Guelph Imaging proposed fixed costs of $30,000.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the result, counsel experience, expected costs, amount claimed/recovered, complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court found that Guelph Imaging's arguments, though eventually withdrawn, required Devlan to provide detailed accounting.

The court fixed costs at $60,000.00 in favour of Devlan Construction Ltd.

This motion concerned interim spousal and child support and interim disbursements.

The parties resolved the interim disbursements issue by agreeing to a line of credit on their jointly owned home for the applicant's litigation costs.

The primary dispute revolved around the imputation of the respondent's income for support calculations.

The applicant sought support based on an imputed income of $350,000, while the respondent proposed $120,000.

The court imputed an income of $120,000 to the respondent, finding the applicant's higher figure speculative and not sufficiently grounded in evidence.

Temporary child and spousal support orders were made based on this imputed income, with the respondent also ordered to continue paying various third-party expenses for the home and the applicant's car.

No income was imputed to the applicant at this stage.

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.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision in a family law matter concerning income imputation and asset division.

The trial judge found the respondent was unemployed and effectively unemployable based on medical evidence and refused to impute income.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's curtailment of cross-examination on the respondent's medical condition and the refusal to grant an adjournment for additional witnesses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions, finding no error in enforcing time limits, refusing the adjournment without reasonable explanation for late witness summoning, and finding that family assets were divided equally with the appellant purchasing Syrian properties from equalization proceeds.

The appellant wife appealed a motion judge's order that retroactively reduced the respondent husband's child and spousal support obligations.

The motion judge had found a material change in circumstances because the husband, who previously had income imputed to him due to unreliable financial disclosure, filed tax returns and an accountant's report.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding no material change in circumstances as the husband's newly declared income was essentially the same as what he claimed at trial, and the accountant's report relied entirely on his self-reported figures which the trial judge had already deemed unreliable.

The retroactive reduction was also found to be in error.

A costs decision following dismissal of a contempt motion brought by the applicant father against the respondent mother.

The father sought full indemnity costs of $32,309.62, alleging the mother acted in bad faith by making repeated unfounded reports to child protection and police agencies.

The mother sought costs on a full indemnity basis from the date of her offer to settle.

The court found the mother acted unreasonably but not in bad faith, and declined to award costs to either party, balancing the mother's unreasonable conduct against the father's failure to serve an offer to settle or counter-offer.

The respondent father brought a motion for access to his child following a two-year termination of contact initiated by the applicant mother in January 2014.

The mother alleged the father had physically abused the child and was consuming alcohol excessively.

The court found that the child's stated fears of contact with the father were a product of the mother's manipulation and alienation.

Despite the child's expressed reluctance, the court ordered unsupervised access, finding that the father posed no risk and that the child required time alone with his father to form an independent view.

The court rejected supervised access as a stepping stone, finding it would perpetuate the mother's control and prevent reconciliation.

The respondent brought a motion regarding jurisdiction in a child support proceeding.

The applicant sought to vary a foreign child support order made in Maryland through either a Motion to Change or an Application under the Family Law Act.

The respondent argued the applicant must proceed under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA).

The court held that jurisdiction to vary a foreign support order made corollary to a foreign divorce can only be derived from provincial legislation respecting enforcement of support orders, namely the ISOA.

The court stayed the Motion to Change and Application insofar as they related to support and ordered the applicant to proceed under the ISOA.

On cross-motions between spouses, the court determined interim parenting and possession issues concerning two children and the matrimonial home.

The court held that the children's best interests favoured interim sole custody remaining with the father, with the children continuing to reside with him in the matrimonial home.

Interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was also granted to him until trial.

The request to order sale of the home and the request for interim child support were refused, and costs were reserved to the trial judge.

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.

The responding party sought costs after successfully defending an application for leave to appeal.

The moving party argued for divided success and that costs should be in the cause.

The court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the need for immediate costs sanctions to encourage negotiated resolutions in high-conflict litigation.

The court awarded the responding party $3,500 in fees plus GST and disbursements.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside a previous order and for directions regarding an appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the motion, setting aside the lower court's order and permitting either party to set the matter down for trial, conditional upon the appellant making specified payments to the respondent and the Family Responsibility Office.

The court also directed the payout of funds held in court as security for costs.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal determined that the appeal was moot given an order made in a related motion, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.