Jesse Rosenberg

This decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute between Isabel Jarosz and Christopher Denda regarding attendance at their daughter’s extracurricular activities.

The court interprets a prior order and considers the best interests of the child, ultimately ruling that each parent should not attend routine extracurricular activities during the other’s parenting time, but both may attend significant events.

The court also addresses concerns about surreptitious recordings and awards partial costs to the successful party.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Respondent (Mother) was largely successful on parenting issues and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs, arguing her pre-motion proposals constituted valid offers to settle under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant (Father) contended these proposals were not Rule 18 offers as they predated his motion.

The court found that pre-motion proposals can indeed be valid offers to settle for cost purposes, as Rule 18 allows offers "even before the case has started." The court awarded the Respondent $44,500 in full recovery costs, considering the Applicant's conduct, including attacking the Respondent's mental health and attempting to admit inadmissible surreptitious recordings.

This is a motion for an interim parenting schedule concerning two children, aged nine and six.

The Applicant Father sought equal parenting time (2-2-5-5 schedule), while the Respondent Mother sought a 60/40 split in her favour (6 nights with Father, 8 nights with Mother every two weeks), along with a mutual right of refusal.

The court found the Mother to be the primary caregiver based on detailed evidence and third-party affidavits, contrasting with the Father's less particularized assertions.

Considering the children's best interests, their strong attachment to the Mother, and the Mother's primary caregiving role, the court granted the Mother's proposed 60/40 parenting schedule on a temporary basis, along with exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the Father on consent.

The moving party mother sought an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' three-year-old child from Toronto to Calgary, pending a final trial.

The mother, who had been the child's primary caregiver since separation, had secured a significant career opportunity in Calgary.

The responding party father, who exercised limited supervised parenting time due to severe and ongoing substance abuse issues, opposed the move.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and the factors for interim relocation, finding a strong probability that the mother's position would prevail at trial.

The court concluded that the move would not significantly impact the young child and granted the interim relocation, establishing a supervised parenting schedule for the father.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The applicant mother struggled with alcohol abuse, leading to the respondent father becoming the primary caregiver for their three children.

The court maintained the current parenting schedule, with the children residing primarily with the father and the mother having parenting time 5 out of 14 days subject to alcohol monitoring.

The court also resolved complex financial issues, including valuing the father's security business on the date of marriage, determining the parties' incomes for support purposes, and addressing claims of unjust enrichment and resulting trust.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $882,115.16 and retroactive spousal support, while the mother was ordered to pay retroactive section 7 expenses.

Following a decision on the merits, both the applicant and respondent sought costs of $15,000 against the other.

The court found that neither party was substantially successful, despite both investing considerable time and expense.

Consequently, the court ordered that costs be in the cause.

The parties brought cross-motions in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The applicant sought a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, variation of interim parenting orders, and an order dispensing with the respondent's consent for child counselling.

The respondent sought variation of the interim parenting orders.

The court ordered a section 112 investigation under the Courts of Justice Act on consent and dismissed the section 30 assessment request due to the parties' financial constraints.

The court dismissed both parties' motions to vary the interim parenting orders, finding neither established a material change in circumstances under the Gordon v. Goertz test.

The request to dispense with consent for counselling was also dismissed.

The court addressed costs following a successful summary judgment motion by the respondents, Stephen and William Elias, against the applicant, Emma Trefler, regarding the validity of a $950,000 mortgage.

Stephen Elias sought full or substantial indemnity costs for both the summary judgment motion and an earlier emergency motion.

William Elias sought substantial indemnity costs for the summary judgment motion.

The court found Stephen's offer to settle did not comply with Family Law Rule 18(14) due to demanding full indemnity costs as a condition of acceptance and lacking a true element of compromise, and William's offer was deficient for not specifying the scale of costs.

Crucially, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 24(4) of the Family Law Rules to deprive Stephen of costs due to his unreasonable and abusive behaviour, including "hurtful, abusive and hateful" anti-Semitic text messages to the applicant, which created a toxic environment and prevented settlement.

Despite William not exhibiting the same behaviour, the court found that due to the identity of interest with Stephen and the circumstances necessitating William's involvement (Stephen's prior agreement to provide proof of loan and William's inability to fully account for funds), ordering the applicant to pay William's costs would defeat the purpose of Rule 24(4).

Consequently, all parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking production and answers to refusals related to the respondent husband's financial disclosure during marriage contract negotiations.

The wife argued that the husband's reliance on his professional advisors, including his lawyer, to prepare his financial disclosure constituted an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege over his lawyer's file.

The court dismissed the wife's motion, holding that merely stating reliance on a lawyer to perform their job in preparing disclosure does not put the legal advice itself in issue, and therefore does not amount to an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege, which is considered to be as close to absolute as possible.

The respondents, the applicant's former spouse and his father, brought motions for summary judgment to determine the validity of a $950,000 mortgage registered against a property owned by the former spouse.

The applicant argued the mortgage was a sham designed to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found that the father had advanced the funds to construct a home on the property and that the applicant had not signed the mortgage acknowledgment under duress.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the mortgage valid and ordering the release of $950,000 from the sale proceeds to the father.

The applicant father brought a motion for a custody and access assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act, arguing that the parties' relationship was high conflict and the child was manifesting stress.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court applied the Glick criteria and found that the evidence did not support the need for an assessment, as there was no clinical diagnosis, the child was thriving, and the conflict was typical of parenting disputes.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to exchange parenting plans.

This case involved two long motions in a family law proceeding, with mutual allegations of non-compliance with existing orders and the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support, dismiss a nanny, and have expenses paid from matrimonial home proceeds or offshore accounts.

The respondent sought to strike the applicant's pleadings for breaches of court orders and to vary an order to obtain loan financing from offshore insurance policies.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, found the applicant in breach of multiple orders, and granted the respondent's motion in part, ordering the applicant to remedy payment and disclosure breaches within 60 days and permitting the respondent to obtain $100,000 CAD in loan financing from offshore policies.

The matter was ordered to be case managed.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim relief following their separation.

The court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, finding that the applicant's proposed increase in overnight visits was not in the young children's best interests at this time.

The court declined to order a s. 30 assessment due to potential delay.

For interim support, the applicant's income was set at $300,000 based on his expert's report, and the respondent's imputed income was set at $25,000.

The respondent's request for a $108,000 interim disbursement was denied; instead, the court ordered the parties to secure a line of credit against the matrimonial home to fund litigation and private school expenses.

The respondent was granted interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting schedule for the parties' child, following the release of a Section 30 assessment report.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the current schedule or implement Phase 1 of the assessor's recommendations.

The court found compelling reasons to change the temporary order, noting the high conflict between the parties and the stress caused by transitions.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered a 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule and set out detailed terms for transitions, communication, and holidays.

The Applicant sought costs following a long motion for temporary child and spousal support, interim exclusive possession, and interim disbursements.

The Applicant was largely successful on the key issues of income determination and exclusive possession, while the Respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.

The court found the Respondent's offer to settle unreasonable as it failed to address his income, a key issue.

The court awarded the Applicant partial indemnity costs of $60,000, representing approximately two-thirds of her partial indemnity costs, with the remaining one-third related to parenting issues deferred to the trial judge.

The Applicant brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment regarding the valuation date, and the Respondent brought a motion for disclosure and a valuation report at her valuation date.

The court adjourned the Applicant's cross-motion due to insufficient notice and the need for a full day hearing, and also adjourned the Respondent's disclosure motion until after the valuation date issue is determined.

The Applicant was ordered to pay costs for the adjournment.

The Applicant brought a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and the Respondent brought a motion for an order compelling global mediation.

The court granted the Applicant's motion, finding that it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the only home they had known without disruption.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for global mediation, finding no agreement between the parties to globally mediate the matter.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support and interim disbursements.

The core issue was determining the respondent's income, as he claimed an income of $200,000 to $260,000 while the applicant argued it was over $1.4 million based on pre-tax corporate income and benefits.

The court found the respondent's Line 150 income was not the fairest determination and fixed his income at $707,500 for temporary support purposes, applying sections 16, 17, and 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide a fair market valuation of his business interests, finding them relevant to spousal support despite a marriage contract.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce the terms of a final order and sought costs.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and also sought costs, arguing she was substantially successful because the father only succeeded on two of the eleven terms he sought to enforce.

The court found the father was the successful party, noting that the breach of any term in a court order is one breach too many.

However, the court apportioned costs for divided success, discounting the father's partial indemnity costs claim by 60 percent and awarding him $6,400.

Following a motion concerning a construction lien priority dispute, the court determined the issue of costs between the parties.

The responding party was the successful party on the only issue in dispute and relied on a Rule 49 offer to seek partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The moving party argued it should receive costs because the responding party conceded a minor adjustment to the holdback amount prior to the hearing.

The court rejected that argument, holding the concession did not justify depriving the successful party of costs.

Applying the factors governing costs assessment, including those articulated in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court fixed costs at $17,300 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.