John P. Schuman

The applicant sought a declaration that an Egyptian divorce order not be recognized or enforced in Ontario and interim spousal support.

The respondent sought a declaration that the Egyptian divorce was valid and enforceable in Ontario and dismissal of the spousal support claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests, finding that the Egyptian divorce was valid and enforceable.

The court determined that the applicant's consent to the divorce was not obtained under duress, there was no denial of natural justice, and public policy favored upholding the divorce to avoid a bigamy conundrum.

Furthermore, the parties had a real and substantial connection to Egypt, and Ontario had already recognized the divorce for the purpose of the respondent's remarriage.

Consequently, the applicant had no standing to claim spousal support in Ontario.

The appellant father appealed an enforcement order and a restraining order made in a family law matter concerning parental alienation.

The enforcement order granted the respondent mother temporary parenting rights to facilitate the children's enrollment in an intensive therapeutic program ("Family Bridges") to address parental alienation.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the enforcement order, affirming the motion judge's jurisdiction under Family Law Rules r. 1(8) to make such orders as necessary for compliance, and finding that the orders were in the children's best interests and supported by evidence of the father's alienating conduct.

The restraining order was varied on consent to mitigate its impact on the father's livelihood.

The dissenting judge argued that the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to vary a final order under r. 1(8) without following the specific procedural requirements for changing parenting orders under the Family Law Rules, Children's Law Reform Act, or Divorce Act, and that there was insufficient evidence to support such a drastic therapeutic intervention.

This case addresses a motion and cross-motion in a high-conflict family dispute concerning parental alienation and non-compliance with prior parenting orders.

The Respondent Mother sought temporary custody and an order for the children to attend a "Family Bridges" reunification workshop, alleging the Applicant Father's systematic alienation and sabotage of therapeutic efforts.

The Applicant Father denied the allegations and sought a focused assessment.

The court found the Applicant Father consistently breached previous orders by involving the children in adult disputes and undermining reunification therapy.

The court granted the Respondent Mother's requested relief, including temporary sole custody, enrollment in the Family Bridges program, a restraining order against the Applicant Father, and ordered him to cover the workshop and aftercare costs.

The Applicant Father's cross-motion was dismissed.

This appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute over the equalization of net family property and a costs award.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's treatment of promissory notes (debts owed by the appellant to his corporations) in calculating net family property under a marriage contract that excluded corporate assets.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal a substantial costs award of $490,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision on both issues, finding no error in including the promissory notes as personal debts not excluded by the marriage contract, and finding the costs award was justified given the appellant's unreasonable litigation tactics.

The Respondent, Tatiane Steinberg, brought an urgent motion for a preservation/non-dissipation order and security for equalization, spousal, and child support after the Applicant, Jose Gustavo Steinberg, transferred over $4 million in assets to his mother in Brazil.

The court continued the preservation order and ordered the Applicant to post an irrevocable letter of credit for $400,000 to secure equalization obligations, with severe penalties for non-compliance.

The court declined to order security for child and spousal support at this stage due to conflicting evidence on income and the short nature of the motion, but ordered extensive monthly disclosure regarding the alienated assets.

The Applicant was also ordered to pay the Respondent $112,500 plus interest, representing the balance of her share from the matrimonial home sale proceeds, which he had improperly withheld.

The court also commented on counsel's failure to properly estimate motion time and case conference issues.

The applicant sought summary judgment declaring his business properties were not "community property" under Ontario law and an order to remove a lis pendens registered by the respondent in Arizona.

He also sought to strike the respondent's equitable claims for pleading deficiencies.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for a preservation order over the Arizona assets.

The court declared that Ontario is not a community property jurisdiction, dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding equitable claims but granted leave for the respondent to amend her pleadings, ordered the respondent to remove the lis pendens, and ordered the release of escrow funds to the applicant's business, finding no risk of asset depletion to warrant a preservation order.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The Applicant sought to enforce an informal handwritten settlement document signed by the parties regarding property and support issues.

The Respondent argued it was merely a framework.

The court applied contract law principles, finding that the document lacked an essential term regarding the method and timing of the $650,000 payment.

Despite the parties' subjective belief of a final agreement, an objective assessment of their conduct revealed an "agreement to agree" on this crucial term.

Consequently, the document was deemed unenforceable, and the Applicant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, requiring the matter to proceed to a full trial.

The court also found that the formal requirements of s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act were met, as the agreement was in writing, signed, and witnessed by sworn testimony.

The parties separated after a short marriage.

Prior to marriage, they signed a contract excluding the applicant's significant corporate assets from net family property but requiring him to pay child support for the respondent's two children from a previous relationship.

The applicant sought to set aside the child support provision, arguing he no longer stood in the place of a parent.

The court upheld the marriage contract, finding the applicant stood in loco parentis and that setting aside the provision would be unconscionable.

The court determined the applicant's income based on his spending habits rather than corporate profits, ordering child support for all three children and spousal support for five years.

The applicant mother brought a motion to suspend the respondent father's access to their child and to set aside a parenting coordinator's arbitration award.

The mother had unilaterally withheld access following an alleged incident where the father pushed the child, though police and child protection services closed their investigations without action.

The parenting coordinator ordered the resumption of access and make-up time.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding no reliable evidence to justify suspending access and no reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness in the arbitration award.

The father's cross-motion to enforce the award and resume access was granted.

The applicant wife sought spousal support and equalization of net family property following a 25-year relationship.

The court found that the matrimonial home, which had been transferred solely to the wife's name to shield it from the husband's creditors, was held in a resulting trust with each party owning a 50 percent interest.

The court declined to order an unequal division of net family property despite the husband's morally reprehensible conduct, finding it did not meet the high threshold of unconscionability.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $107,540.28.

The court also found the wife entitled to compensatory spousal support, imputed the husband's income at $95,000, and ordered a lump sum spousal support payment of $96,064 to effect a clean break due to high acrimony.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after a 25-year relationship.

The wife sought spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the matrimonial home, which had been transferred solely to the wife's name to protect it from the husband's creditors, was held 50 percent in trust for the husband under the presumption of a resulting trust.

The court declined to order an unequal division of net family property, finding that the husband's morally reprehensible conduct did not meet the exceptionally high threshold of unconscionability under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $107,540.28.

The court found the wife entitled to spousal support, imputing the husband's income at $95,000.

Due to the high level of acrimony between the parties, the court ordered the husband to pay a lump sum spousal support amount of $96,064 to effect a clean break.

In a family law support proceeding, the respondent father sought an adjournment of a motion brought by the applicant mother seeking increased child support and spousal support, including substantial retroactive claims based on a forensic accounting report alleging significantly higher income.

The court accepted that the father should be permitted time to obtain a responding expert report but found the delay primarily benefited him.

As a condition of granting the adjournment, the court ordered temporary, without prejudice support payments calculated using a conservative estimate of income derived from the forensic report and the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court imposed monthly interim payments pending determination of the motion to mitigate prejudice to the mother resulting from the delay.

The father brought a motion seeking recusal of the trial judge and a declaration of mistrial on two grounds: (1) late disclosure and non-disclosure of notes from Jennifer Shneer, the mother's therapist employed by the child protection society, which the father claimed prejudiced his ability to conduct his case; and (2) an alleged apprehension of bias arising from a distant familial relationship between the judge and the proposed witness.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding no prejudicial disclosure, no basis for declaring a mistrial, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The father brought a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the court's scheduling of a child protection trial, arguing that adjournments exceeding 30 days and the failure to schedule consecutive trial dates violated his Charter rights under sections 7 and 15.

The father sought various remedies including dismissal of the application, placement of children in his care, or modified access arrangements.

The court dismissed the constitutional motion in its entirety, finding that the scheduling decisions were within the court's jurisdiction and discretion, that no Charter rights were violated, and that the sought remedies were neither appropriate nor just in the circumstances.

The respondent father sought costs against both the mother and her counsel, Rocco Achampong, following the stay of his Ontario Court of Justice custody application when the mother commenced divorce proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice.

The father claimed $6,135 in full indemnity costs.

The court found that while the mother was entitled to proceed in the Superior Court of Justice, her counsel's conduct in bringing a motion without notice in that court while actively corresponding with the father's counsel about an imminent motion in the Ontario Court of Justice constituted a breach of professional obligations.

The court awarded costs against the counsel personally but dismissed the claim against the mother.

The applicant brought an emergency motion for temporary custody of two young children following a recent separation and an incident that resulted in the applicant being removed from the matrimonial home by police.

The respondent opposed the motion on the basis that the matter was not urgent.

The court found urgency under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules due to the abrupt separation of the children from their primary caregiver and the infant’s dependence on breastfeeding.

Considering the best interests of the children and the applicant’s role as primary caregiver, the court ordered that temporary custody be transferred to the applicant.

The respondent was granted generous access and further steps in the proceeding were directed, including an early case conference and financial disclosure.

Following the dismissal of a husband's motion seeking reconsideration of an earlier family law order, the wife sought costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected allegations that the motion had been brought in bad faith but found the husband's decision to pursue reconsideration rather than an appeal to be unreasonable.

As a result, the court determined that full recovery of the wife's reasonable costs was warranted, subject to a minor reduction reflecting items for which costs had previously been denied.

The husband was ordered to pay the reduced costs amount, enforceable as spousal support through the Family Responsibility Office.