Jodi L. Feldman

This ruling addresses the Applicant's motion and the Respondent's cross-motion concerning financial disclosure, refused undertakings, and non-party disclosure from the Applicant's father.

The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in disclosure, dismissing most of the extensive requests from both parties as irrelevant or disproportionate "fishing expeditions." Limited disclosure was granted, primarily related to the Respondent's income and specific non-party financial information (laptop receipt, credit card statements) from the Applicant's father, while other requests were deemed unnecessary or an invasion of privacy.

The Respondent Father moved to vary a previous order to expand his parenting time with the child.

The Applicant Mother opposed, proposing a more restrictive expansion.

The court, considering the child's best interests and a s. 30 Assessment, granted a graduated expansion of the father's parenting time, including alternate weekends, midweek time, and extended summer holiday periods, while rejecting some of the father's specific requests regarding transitions and travel distance.

The court emphasized the importance of promoting the child's relationship with both parents despite high parental conflict.

This costs endorsement followed substantive motions regarding a child's school attendance and residence.

The respondent, Mazin Jillood, was found primarily successful on the substantive motions.

The court considered Family Law Rule 24 regarding costs, including divided success and unreasonable behaviour of both parties.

While Mazin was successful on the main issue of school attendance and largely on residence, his "self-help" in removing the child from the applicant's care was deemed unreasonable.

The applicant, Deborah Friesen, also contributed to the dispute by unilaterally moving.

The court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of costs, considering the importance and complexity of issues, time spent by counsel, and the parties' financial circumstances.

Ultimately, the court awarded Mazin $4,500.00 in all-inclusive costs, a reduction from the amount sought, and deferred payment until child and spousal support issues are resolved.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction to restrain her daughter, a respondent, from depleting assets in two corporations controlled by the daughter.

The mother also sought an order for questioning of the daughter and corporate respondents.

The court dismissed the Mareva injunction, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious risk of asset dissipation or irreparable harm, noting that assets transferred between the daughter's wholly-owned corporations remained traceable.

The motion for questioning was adjourned pending a disclosure motion.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking compliance with information-sharing provisions of a final order related to the parties' four children.

The motion was dismissed due to improper affidavit evidence, as the applicant relied on affidavits from lawyers who lacked personal knowledge of the contentious facts, violating rules of evidence.

The court strongly disapproved of this practice, emphasizing that parties should file their own affidavits.

While the motion was dismissed, the issues raised were permitted to be addressed at a pre-existing trial.

The respondent was awarded costs for the motion.

Following a complex motion where the applicant was entirely successful in imputing income and obtaining child and spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery of $94,373.45, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent's defiant, uninformative, and misleading approach to disclosure constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

However, noting the applicant's bill of costs lacked sufficient particularity and applying principles of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $39,550, with $31,640 enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant sought child and spousal support, and interim disbursements for legal fees and a business valuator, while the respondent cross-motioned for access and Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement.

The court imputed an annual income of $150,000 to the respondent for support purposes, finding a pattern of non-disclosure, lavish lifestyle, and complex financial arrangements.

The court ordered retroactive child and spousal support, and interim disbursements for the applicant.

The respondent's motions for access and OCL involvement were dismissed due to serious concerns about his mental health, violent history, and lack of insight.

This trial decision addresses financial issues arising from a marital breakdown, including equalization of net family properties, child support, spousal support, and retroactive support claims.

While custody was resolved, the court determined the equalization payment owed by the husband to the wife, established the parties' qualifying incomes for support purposes, and assessed the wife's entitlement to spousal support, including whether income should be imputed to her.

The court largely dismissed the wife's substantial claim for retroactive spousal support due to the payor's financial hardship and the claimant's insufficient efforts towards self-sufficiency, but awarded adjusted retroactive child support based on the payor's actual income.

Postmedia Network Inc. brought a motion to set aside a sealing order and publication ban granted on consent in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The respondent opposed the motion, citing privacy, commercial interests, and the best interests of the children.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that the respondent failed to establish a serious risk to the administration of justice that would justify a complete sealing order.

The court vacated the sealing order but imposed a limited publication ban to protect the identities and privacy of the children, as well as personal identifiers to prevent identity theft.

In a high-conflict family law dispute following a long-term marriage, the applicant sought extensive interim relief including the appointment of a receiver, interim disbursements, support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent's financial circumstances were complex, involving multiple corporations and a significant pending tax liability.

The court declined to appoint a receiver but ordered the appointment of a joint expert to determine the respondent's income, requiring the respondent to pay the $50,000 retainer.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $25,000 in interim disbursements to level the playing field, awarded interim child and spousal support based on an imputed income, and granted the applicant temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

A costs endorsement following the dismissal of an urgent motion brought by the father seeking to set aside a separation agreement, obtain temporary sole custody, terminate the mother's access, and obtain a restraining order.

The father brought the motion ex parte on July 11, 2014, claiming imminent risk to the child's safety.

The court refused to proceed without notice and scheduled a return date.

On July 21, 2014, the motion was dismissed on the basis that it did not meet the test for urgency, as the concerns had been known for months or years and there was no imminent risk of harm.

The court found the father had misled the court regarding ongoing settlement negotiations and the mother's alleged flight risk.

The respondent sought full costs on a solicitor-and-client basis, alleging bad faith.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but on a partial indemnity basis, finding the father's conduct was unreasonable but not in bad faith.

In a family law motion between separated parents with ongoing litigation concerning custody, access, and support, the moving party sought orders relating to the child’s schooling, interim spousal support, and funding to retain an expert.

The court held that maintaining stability for the child pending trial was in the child’s best interests and ordered continued enrolment at the Montessori school the child had been attending, with the responding party responsible for the school fees.

The court rejected the moving party’s claim for interim spousal support given the short duration of the marriage and absence of a compensatory or dependency basis for support.

The request for interim funding to retain an expert was also dismissed.

The court encouraged improved parental communication and directed that an expedited trial be scheduled if the issues could not be resolved at settlement.