John Syrtash

Following a long motion regarding temporary parenting, support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondent wife was largely successful, having obtained primary residence, exclusive possession, and temporary support.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the wife's offers were closer to the final order.

The court also found the applicant husband acted unreasonably by refusing to vacate the matrimonial home despite having alternative accommodation.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $19,200 in costs.

The applicant husband brought a motion seeking the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, an equal parenting schedule, a custody and access assessment, and to pay $5,000 per month in voluntary support.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion seeking temporary exclusive possession of the home, primary residence of the children, and $10,000 per month in uncharacterized support.

The court ordered a section 30 assessment due to the high conflict and the children's behavioural issues.

The court granted the wife temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and primary residence of the children, finding it was in their best interests to maintain stability.

The husband's motion for the immediate sale of the home was dismissed.

The husband was ordered to pay $7,200 per month in temporary undifferentiated support.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant father's motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and access.

The father sought to vary non-variable terms restricting him from taking the children out of Ontario, citing his permanent relocation to Washington DC and marriage as material changes.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz test and found no material change in circumstances that was unforeseen at the time of the original order.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the father's motion to change.

The applicant husband brought a motion seeking the release of $1M from the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home, as well as the repayment of several small loans.

The respondent wife opposed the motion, arguing that the $1M request had already been dealt with in a prior consent order that required the husband to post a letter of credit, which he failed to do.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding that he could not reargue an issue settled by a temporary consent order without bringing a proper motion to vary.

The court also dismissed the balance of the relief, holding that the minor financial disputes should be determined at trial.

Costs of $12,000 were awarded to the successful respondent.

The applicant father sought the return of his two youngest children to Bahrain after the respondent mother brought them to Ontario following a vacation in Pakistan.

The father had obtained a sole custody order in Bahrain without notice to the mother.

The court found that while the children were habitually resident in Bahrain, Ontario should assume jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act due to the family's strong connections to Ontario, evidence of domestic violence, and the discriminatory nature of Bahraini family law.

The court declined to recognize the Bahraini custody order and granted temporary sole custody to the mother.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a contempt finding and enforcement remedies after the respondent failed to comply with prior court orders requiring financial disclosure, payment of $40,000 for interim disbursements, and payment of costs of $8,770.84.

The court found the respondent had provided no satisfactory explanation for failing to comply and had not appealed the prior orders.

Rather than immediately finding contempt or dismissing the respondent’s case, the court imposed conditional participation at trial.

The respondent’s participation in trial, except on custody and access issues, was made conditional on full compliance with the prior orders within 30 days.

Failing compliance, the respondent’s pleadings would be struck except with respect to custody and access, and the applicant was awarded additional costs of $5,000.