Jonathan Korman

The court addresses a high-conflict family law dispute between former spouses regarding the division of proceeds from the sale of their matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and costs.

The respondent repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders, resulting in significant delays and additional costs for the applicant.

The court ultimately orders that neither party owes the other an equalization payment, dismisses the applicant's claim for an unequal division of property, but grants her reimbursement for post-separation expenses, writs, and costs, all payable from the respondent's share of the sale proceeds.

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following an uncontested child support trial where the father was found to have acted in bad faith by deliberately misrepresenting his financial position and failing to comply with court orders.

The court awarded the mother $100,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be enforced as support by the Director under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The court emphasized the importance of proportionality and reasonableness in costs awards and recognized the exceptional circumstances due to the father's conduct, which necessitated extensive legal efforts by the mother to uncover his true financial status.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted Janet Jansen's amended motion to retroactively increase child support payments from David DiCecco, her former partner, starting August 1, 2003.

The court found that DiCecco had engaged in egregious blameworthy conduct by deliberately misrepresenting his income and assets over many years, failing to provide meaningful financial disclosure, and intimidating the mother to delay litigation.

The court imputed income to the father based on increases in his net worth and business growth, significantly exceeding the income he reported to the CRA.

The retroactive support arrears were calculated at $899,811, payable forthwith, with the court rejecting the father's attempts to limit his obligations or reduce support based on the child's age or his income exceeding $150,000.

The decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring child support obligations reflect actual income and punishes financial deception.

The applicant father, Mohammed Firuz, was successful in his motion to increase parenting time.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The father sought $6,102, while the mother, Shafiqa Said, requested no costs, citing impecuniosity.

The court found the father's offer to settle was more favorable than the motion's outcome, triggering the costs consequences of Family Law Rule 18(14).

Despite the mother's limited ability to pay, her chronic unreasonable and obstructive behavior regarding parenting time and her failure to make an offer to settle warranted a costs award.

The court ordered the mother to pay the father $3,000 in costs, inclusive of fees and HST, deferring the payment terms until a later date.