Jessica Brown

This appeal concerns a family law dispute involving claims for unjust enrichment arising from a joint family venture and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the trial judge’s award of $3,000,000 in damages for unjust enrichment, $365,624 in lump sum spousal support, and $475,000 in costs to the respondent, Katherine Ann Mullin.

The court found that the trial judge properly applied the law regarding unjust enrichment and joint family ventures, and that the evidence supported the findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision resolves cross-motions to change a 2016 Divorce Order regarding child and spousal support, and the sharing of section 7 expenses for two children after one left for university.

The court addresses the treatment of non-recurring income for support purposes, the netting down of retroactive spousal support, and the imputation of income to the recipient.

The court finds that certain non-recurring employment benefits should be excluded from the payor’s income, retroactive spousal support should be netted down, and imputes income to the recipient.

The court sets out detailed calculations for arrears, overpayments, and the parties’ respective shares of section 7 expenses, and makes orders for ongoing support and expense sharing.

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 uncontested trial addressed a high-conflict family dispute concerning decision-making and parenting time for a six-year-old child.

The respondent mother had repeatedly made unsubstantiated allegations of sexual and physical abuse against the applicant father, withheld the child from him for extended periods, and refused to cooperate with court orders and investigations by the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the mother's actions constituted family violence, causing emotional and psychological harm to the child.

Consequently, the court ordered a change in the child's primary residence from the mother to the father, granted the father sole decision-making authority, and ordered the mother to pay child support and significant costs due to her unreasonable and intransigent conduct throughout the litigation.

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 Applicant sought monetary damages for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture, an order for no equalization payment, and a lump sum spousal support payment.

The Respondent opposed these claims.

The court found that the Applicant had established unjust enrichment within a joint family venture due to her contributions to the Respondent's business (GS Medical) and household, and her corresponding deprivation (giving up her career, underpaid/unpaid labor).

The court also found the Applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, noting the luxurious lifestyle during cohabitation and the Applicant's economic disadvantage.

Due to the Respondent's lack of financial disclosure, adverse inferences were drawn regarding the value of his business.

The court awarded the Applicant $3,000,000 for unjust enrichment and $365,624.00 net of tax for lump sum spousal support, plus prejudgment interest.

The divorce application was granted.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of a temporary parenting order after she withheld access to their child.

The mother withheld access pending a police and Children's Aid Society investigation into suspected child abuse, which was ultimately closed without charges.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the mother had a reasonably held belief and legitimate justification for withholding the child.

The court also dismissed the father's requests to change primary residence, order joint custody, and restrict the maternal grandmother's contact, finding insufficient evidence of parental alienation or compelling reasons to vary the interim order.

The respondent husband brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant wife brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession, temporary spousal support, child support for three children (two adopted, one biological adult son), and an advance on equalization or interim disbursements.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims for exclusive possession, ongoing child support for all three children, and interim disbursements/equalization advance.

However, the court granted the applicant temporary spousal support of $5,000 per month and ordered an immediate payment of $100,000 to the applicant from the net proceeds of the matrimonial home sale, with a similar amount to the respondent, and the balance held in trust.

Retroactivity for support was reserved for trial.

The appellant appealed from an order striking his pleadings and limiting his trial participation rights in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought spousal support and equalization of net family property following a brief marriage.

The appellant failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring disclosure of financial information and answers to undertakings and refusals given during examination.

The motion judge struck the appellant's Answer and imposed restrictions on his participation at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but varied the order to augment the appellant's trial participation rights, permitting him to make an opening statement, cross-examine witnesses, and make closing submissions without requiring leave of the trial judge.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a dismissed motion for disclosure brought by the applicant, Magdalena Duleba, against the respondent, Steve Guy Sorge, and a non-party, Mobile Fringe Inc. The court found no reason to deviate from the presumption that successful parties are entitled to costs.

It awarded costs to the self-represented respondent, Steve Guy Sorge, for his time and effort, and to Mobile Fringe Inc. on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis following a successful motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the respondent's evasive responses and repeated breaches of court orders amounted to bad faith and a deliberate attempt to frustrate the applicant's claims.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $30,539.97, noting that the respondent's conduct justified the higher scale of costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking financial disclosure from two corporations: one wholly owned by the respondent father, and another in which he held a minority interest.

The court applied the test for non-party disclosure under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient particulars to justify further disclosure from the wholly-owned corporation, and that the request for disclosure from the non-party corporation was disproportionate and lacked expert evidence demonstrating its necessity.

The Applicant sought various interim orders including spousal and child support, retroactive support, section 7 expenses, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, payment to a joint line of credit, interim disbursement, sale of a yacht, and a preservation order.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion to strike parts of the Applicant's affidavit and compel undertakings.

The court imputed an income of $300,000 to the Respondent for interim support purposes, declined to impute income to the Applicant, and ordered temporary spousal support of $7,000/month and child support of $2,878/month.

Retroactive support was adjourned to trial.

The court denied the interim disbursement request but ordered the sale of the yacht with net proceeds split equally after paying a loan.

Both parties were ordered to provide outstanding disclosure and undertakings.

A preservation order was continued with an added notice requirement for the Respondent's business shares.

The Respondent's request to strike evidence was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for his repeated failure to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The parties separated after a 13-year relationship, and the applicant required corporate and personal financial information to establish her claims for spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the respondent wilfully and deliberately breached previous disclosure orders and failed to answer undertakings from his questioning.

As a result, the court struck the respondent's pleadings, granted the applicant leave to proceed to an uncontested hearing, and ordered the respondent to pay costs on a substantial indemnity scale due to his bad faith conduct.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions concerning parenting issues and child support.

The Respondent sought a specific parenting schedule and a s. 30 assessment, while the Applicant sought a different parenting schedule, an order to engage a child therapist, and temporary and retroactive child support, including s. 7 expenses.

The court established a temporary parenting schedule based on alternate 3-night weekends with specific holiday arrangements, dismissing the Respondent's request for an immediate 50/50 split and the Applicant's request for a child therapist.

A s. 30 assessment was ordered due to the toxic parental relationship and differing views on the children's needs, with costs to be shared equally.

The court determined the Respondent's income for child support at $324,923 CAD, rejected his undue hardship claim, and ordered him to pay $4,013 per month in child support.

The Applicant's claim for ongoing s. 7 expenses (except for nanny costs, which were to be negotiated) and retroactive support was dismissed or adjourned to trial.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion where the respondent was found to have inappropriately moved assets and failed to fulfill disclosure obligations.

The court declined to award enhanced costs based on the applicant's late offer to settle.

However, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct in failing to make timely disclosure and attempting to shield assets from the proceeding.

Costs were fixed at $58,000.