Joel Moldaver

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte request to reconsider a previous order that required them to give notice to the defendants of their motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The plaintiffs argued that circumstances had changed, making an ex parte motion necessary.

The court dismissed the request, finding no significant change in circumstances and noting that the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the motion on notice undermined their claim of urgency.

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that the plaintiff had obtained ex parte on a property.

The CPL was based on a 2010 Rent-to-Own Agreement, which required the plaintiff to make payments beyond rent and arrange financing within three to five years.

The plaintiff failed to comply with these terms and did not pursue the purchase option for many years.

The court found no reasonable claim to an interest in land and no triable issue, noting that any alleged improvements could be addressed by way of damages.

The motion to discharge the CPL was granted, and the court invited costs submissions from the defendant.

This motion concerned the interpretation of "spouse" under section 29 of the Family Law Act, specifically the phrase "are the parents of a child." The applicant, Mr. Elkind, sought a declaration that he and the respondent, Ms. Addeo, were not spouses, arguing their child's death before separation negated spousal status.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the phrase means two people who have a child together while cohabiting in a relationship of some permanence are spouses, regardless of whether the child is alive at the date of separation.

The decision emphasized that economic consequences and mutual commitment arising from the decision to have a child persist even if the child does not survive.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, a restraining order, and supervised parenting time for the respondent father.

The father had been noted in default and had a history of substance misuse, mental health instability, and family violence, including breaching a temporary restraining order.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and a final restraining order.

The court declined to order any parenting time for the father, finding that unsupervised time posed a risk of emotional harm to the child and that there was no viable plan for supervised time before the court.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' 16-year-old son from an educational and therapeutic program in Utah, United States.

The urgency was predicated on the COVID-19 pandemic and the imminent closure of the Canada-US border.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to return to Canada immediately, given the health concerns and government recommendations for citizens abroad.

The court ordered the respondent mother to turn over the child's passport and required both parties to cooperate in facilitating the child's return, after which he would self-quarantine with the applicant for 14 days.

The applicant was successful on a motion regarding the residential schedule of the parties' daughter and sought costs of $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

While the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs due to his success and beating his offer to settle, the court found that both parties had engaged in blameworthy conduct that escalated the conflict contrary to the child's best interests.

Consequently, the court reduced the applicant's cost recovery and awarded him $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Applicant sought costs totaling $165,618.82 after a six-day trial on financial issues, including income determination, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The Respondent argued for divided success and each party bearing their own costs.

The court found the Applicant marginally more successful, particularly regarding the date of separation and the valuation of the Respondent's business, where the Respondent's positions were less reasonable.

Neither party's offers to settle were severable, complicating the assessment of success.

Considering the reasonableness of the parties' conduct and the proportionality of costs, the court awarded the Applicant $30,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable from the Respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds, noting it was not a case for full recovery.

The co-respondents, Louis Montello and Las Princesas Corp., brought a motion under Rule 25(19)(d) of the Family Law Rules to set aside specific paragraphs of a final order obtained by Monique Abitbol without notice.

The impugned paragraphs disentitled Montello and Las Princesas from further participation and declared them to be holding the "Golden Beach" property in trust for Alberto Benarroch.

Applying the factors from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen, the court found that while there was no compelling excuse for the co-respondents' default in filing an Answer, they had an arguable defense on the merits.

The court determined that allowing the ex-parte declaratory relief to stand would cause disproportionate prejudice to the co-respondents and undermine the integrity of justice.

The motion was granted, setting aside the contested paragraphs, with terms including payment of prior costs and an expedited timetable for the proceeding.

The applicant mother sought full recovery costs of $62,939.39 after being largely successful in custody and parenting motions.

The respondent father sought costs payable in cause or limited to $10,500.

The court found the father acted in bad faith due to his conduct, including involving the child in litigation, non-compliance with orders, and making a baseless insinuation of judicial bias.

Despite the mother not making an offer to settle and her counsel's time appearing excessive, the court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, reflecting disapproval of the father's conduct and a discount for the mother's omissions.

The request to enforce the award as a support order was declined.

The Applicant Father brought a motion seeking a change in custody, supervised access for the Respondent Mother, and a s. 30 assessment, primarily due to the Mother's highly inappropriate and vulgar conduct involving their child during a phone call.

The Mother admitted her conduct was inexcusable and had since enrolled in anger management and therapeutic counselling, seeking dismissal of the Father's motion and for the Minutes of Settlement to be made a court order.

The court dismissed the Father's motion, finding that while the Mother's conduct was deplorable, it appeared to be an isolated incident.

The court emphasized the importance of upholding the recent Minutes of Settlement and the potential for further litigation to negatively impact the children.

Specific orders were issued to prevent future inappropriate conduct, but the existing parenting arrangements were maintained, and a s. 30 assessment was not ordered at that time.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the mother brought a motion to continue a section 30 parenting assessment and to order reunification therapy for the parties and their youngest son.

The father brought a cross-motion to appoint a lawyer for the child or order a Voice of the Child Report.

The court found a history of order non-compliance by the father and determined that the child's estrangement from the mother required immediate intervention.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering reunification therapy to commence immediately alongside the section 30 assessment, and dismissed the father's motion, finding that further involving the child in the litigation was not in his best interests.

The wife sought costs of $48,221.92 following successful motions primarily regarding support, interim disbursements, and disclosure.

The husband opposed the amount but did not provide a comparative bill of costs.

The court found that the husband engaged in bad faith through a pattern of deceptive disclosure and non-disclosure regarding his financial circumstances.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the wife $35,000 in costs on a full recovery basis for the support issue, with $25,000 enforceable as a support order.

The applicant brought a motion for interim disbursements, a preservation order, and to lift a stay of enforcement of a temporary support order.

The court found that the respondent had been reticent in providing financial disclosure, necessitating the applicant to incur significant expert and legal fees to determine his true income.

To level the playing field, the court ordered the respondent to pay $60,000 as an interim disbursement under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The court declined to make a preservation order and ordered that the stay of enforcement remain in place, provided the interim disbursement is paid.