Joseph Slavec

The respondent brought a motion seeking declarations that he had complied with a prior disclosure order and that no further monetary penalties were owing.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found that the respondent had made extraordinary efforts to comply with the voluminous disclosure requests and had substantially complied by July 18, 2022.

The court determined that the respondent had overpaid the accrued penalties and ordered the applicant to reimburse him $29,300 USD.

The applicant husband sought to bifurcate family law proceedings, separating professional liability claims (breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of mental distress arising from a prior psychotherapist-patient relationship) from matrimonial claims (divorce, support, and equalization).

The respondent wife opposed bifurcation, arguing the claims were inextricably linked as part of a continuous pattern of coercive control.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that hearing the matters together was more just, efficient, expeditious, and proportionate, particularly given the respondent's intention to testify about the entire relationship in the family law proceeding and the absence of any benefit from a stepwise approach.

The court considered an urgent motion by Valerie Marinovic for the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession pending sale.

The court ordered the home to be listed for sale, Valerie to have exclusive possession until sale, and costs to Valerie.

Daniel Marinovic’s requests to delay the sale, return to the home, and require a settlement proposal were denied.

The court found Daniel’s opposition to the sale unreasonable and that exclusive possession for Valerie was in the children’s best interests.

Following a motion regarding interim support and control of a business, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought $26,072.49 based on unaccepted offers to settle, while the respondent argued for costs to be deferred to trial, claiming mixed success.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and declined to defer costs.

The court awarded the applicant $17,000 in costs on an elevated partial indemnity scale of 66%, reflecting condemnation of the respondent's failure to adhere to previous court orders.

The parties brought competing motions in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The applicant sought control of the family business, AKA Creative Inc., and the return of his belongings, arguing the respondent breached a prior ex-parte order.

The respondent sought interim child support, spousal support, and proportionate sharing of special expenses based on an imputed income of $300,000 for the applicant.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the respondent had not respected the prior order and that the applicant, as majority shareholder, should manage the business.

The court partially granted the respondent's motion, imputing an income of $50,000 to the applicant and $18,720 to the respondent, and ordered go-forward child support and proportionate sharing of private school expenses.

The respondent brought a motion to vary an interim child and spousal support order, arguing that his business income had significantly declined due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that he had 'better information' as contemplated by the original order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the financial information provided by the respondent was incomplete, lacked independent expert corroboration, and did not constitute the 'better information' required to justify varying an interim support order.

The court also declined to adjust section 7 expenses, leaving that issue for the trial judge.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought disclosure of various corporate and financial records relating to businesses owned by the respondent and his family.

The court ordered disclosure of corporate financial records back to 2014 for business valuation purposes, as well as post-March 2020 records relevant to a pending motion to reduce support due to the pandemic.

The court also ordered the respondents to request accounting records from their accountants and to produce commercial leases subject to a confidentiality agreement and notice to landlords.

The applicant sought urgent relief regarding access to their fifteen-month-old child, Samuel, including unsupervised access and a modified 2-2-3 schedule.

The respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent and brought a cross-motion for continued primary residence and the existing interim access schedule.

The court, applying the "urgency" test from the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession during the COVID-19 pandemic, found the initial access issue urgent but the request for an equal time-sharing schedule was not.

The court expanded the applicant's interim unsupervised access schedule, emphasizing the child's best interests and the parents' prior co-parenting involvement, while noting the Children's Aid Society found no ongoing violence.

The applicant's request for a 2/2/5 schedule was adjourned for a more fulsome record.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his two young children to Massachusetts, their habitual residence, after the mother wrongfully retained them in Ontario following a consented visit.

The court found that Massachusetts was the children's habitual residence, the father had custody rights which he was exercising, and the mother's retention was wrongful due to deceit.

The court dismissed the mother's defence of grave risk of harm, finding the alleged abuse insufficient to meet the high threshold.

The children were ordered to be returned to Massachusetts.

This endorsement confirms Justice Diamond's appointment as the case management judge for the proceeding.

It addresses the scheduling of a long motion concerning jurisdiction (Ontario or Massachusetts) and a potential Hague Convention application for the return of children to Massachusetts.

The judge directs that the Hague Convention application should ideally proceed earlier and separately from the jurisdiction issue.