Jordan Stuart Rosenberg

The Applicant sought extensive financial disclosure from the Respondent, who brought a cross-motion to dismiss, strike a paragraph, and impose disclosure restrictions, including a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

The court criticized both parties' counsel for poor advocacy and lack of cooperation, particularly the Applicant's voluminous and unfocused material.

The court ordered specific, limited disclosure from the Respondent, contingent on the Applicant signing an NDA for confidential third-party information.

The Respondent's request to strike a paragraph containing settlement privileged discussions was granted.

Costs were awarded to the Respondent due to the Applicant's unreasonable positions and poorly prepared motion materials.

The applicant wife sought summary judgment to enforce a global financial settlement negotiated at a settlement conference.

The respondent husband argued the agreement was not binding, conditional on independent legal advice (ILA), and unconscionable.

The court found no binding settlement, concluding that the negotiated terms were conditional upon the husband obtaining ILA and executing a formal contract.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to trial.

The respondent brought a motion to change the final custody and access order from 2014, seeking to establish a fixed 50/50 summer parenting schedule for the child.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances required to vary the 2014 consent order.

The court determined that the parties had established a negotiation-based process for determining summer access that was consistent with the 2014 order and that this process, while sometimes difficult, had not negatively affected the child.

The court also found that the respondent was barred by action estoppel from relitigating the summer access issue, which had been addressed in prior proceedings through settlement negotiations.

The respondent brought a motion seeking ongoing child and spousal support, lump sum arrears, enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), and financial relief concerning offshore accounts.

The applicant, who was self-represented and had his pleadings struck due to repeated breaches of court orders and non-disclosure, did not attend the motion.

The court granted significant relief to the respondent, including temporary ongoing support of $5,250.00 per month, lump sum arrears of $64,889.16, and previous cost awards totaling $31,362.81, plus $7,000.00 for the current motion, all enforceable by FRO.

The court also ordered the applicant to maintain a $1,000,000 life insurance policy with the respondent as irrevocable beneficiary and granted the respondent sole authority and access to offshore accounts with Temple Financial Group due to the applicant's non-cooperation.

Additionally, the applicant was ordered to cooperate in obtaining a Get/Ghet.

The applicant sought to enforce various terms of a consent order dated June 15, 2018, concerning equalization payments, child support arrears, section 7 expenses, and spousal support arrears.

The matrimonial home had been sold, and proceeds were held in trust, but the parties disagreed on the amounts to be disbursed.

The respondent disputed the calculation of post-separation advances and interest, and attempted to renegotiate the agreement through a release.

The court clarified the terms of the consent order, accepting the applicant's calculations for advances and ordering the immediate release of funds from the sale of the matrimonial home, including accrued interest, to satisfy the outstanding obligations.

The respondent was found in breach of the consent order, and costs submissions were ordered.

A cabinetry contractor brought an action to enforce a construction lien arising from work performed on a custom residential home.

The dispute concerned the contract price, entitlement to extras, whether a $25,000 payment constituted a deposit on the project, whether the lien was preserved in time, and priority between the lien claimant and a building mortgagee.

The court found that the contractor had established a valid contract and entitlement to certain extras, resulting in a total contract price of $59,157 including GST.

The court further held that the $25,000 cheque was a deposit for the project and that the lien was preserved within the statutory period under the Construction Lien Act because substantive work was completed in January 2010.

Applying the statutory priority provisions, the court concluded that the lien claimant had priority over the mortgagee to the extent of the holdback deficiency and a mortgage advance made after the first lien arose.