J. Scott McLeod

This motion addressed several outstanding issues between separated parents, including the management of s. 7 expenses for children, reconciliation of rent revenues from properties, allocation of corporate debt, and a passport penalty.

The court determined that children's acting expenses should be included in the s. 7 budget, with any income generated to be set aside for future post-secondary or acting costs.

It ordered the creation of a new joint bank account for s. 7 contributions with monthly statements.

The court reconciled rent revenues, finding the respondent owed the applicant $18,532.70 after various adjustments.

Claims by the applicant regarding a lien and an HST error related to corporate debt were dismissed, as was the respondent's claim for a passport penalty.

Following a trial arising from the breakdown of a long-term common law relationship with two children, the court rejected the applicant's claims for spousal support, unjust enrichment, and a joint family venture.

The court made strong adverse credibility findings against the applicant, accepted the respondent's evidence, and relied on expert income valuation evidence to impute the applicant's income at $75,000 annually under the Child Support Guidelines.

Retroactive and ongoing child support, retroactive and ongoing section 7 contributions, life insurance security, and discharge of a certificate of pending litigation were ordered.

A three-year restraining order was also granted based on findings of prolonged emotional and physical abuse.

The applicant wife sought equalization of net family property and spousal support, alleging the respondent husband had substantial unreported cash income from his jewellery business.

The court rejected the applicant's expert evidence on hidden income and accepted the respondent's business valuation.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust to the matrimonial home and a gifted property.

Income was imputed to both parties for support purposes.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment and ongoing spousal support, with adjustments made for previous advances and overpayments.

Following a long motion concerning temporary and retroactive spousal support, the court determined costs.

The primary issue in the underlying motion involved imputing income to both parties and relied on competing expert reports from income valuators.

Although the applicant was successful in obtaining a temporary spousal support order, neither party’s offer to settle closely matched the outcome.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering factors such as complexity, counsel rates, time spent, and reasonableness of behaviour, the court reduced the applicant’s claimed costs.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 plus HST and limited disbursements, while the substantial expert report expense was deferred to trial for determination.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, enforcement of a Maher under an Islamic marriage contract, and an order compelling the respondent to obtain a religious divorce.

The court found the marriage contract valid and enforceable, ordering an equalization payment that included the Maher value.

The court also awarded post-separation adjustments for mortgage, utility, and flight costs.

Finally, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order the respondent to take all necessary steps to obtain an Islamic Iranian divorce.

The moving party, who was previously found to be a special party under Rule 2(1) of the Family Law Rules, brought a motion to appoint his son as his legal representative.

The responding party opposed the appointment, alleging conflicts of interest, financial dependence, and unsuitability.

The court reviewed the affidavit evidence and found the proposed representative to be suitable, noting that the responding party's concerns were largely based on conjecture and speculation.

The motion to appoint the legal representative was granted.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order restraining the respondent mother from removing the child from Ontario and disputing the respondent’s claim that Hawaii was the proper jurisdiction for custody and access proceedings.

Concurrent proceedings had been commenced in Hawaii.

Applying ss. 22 and 23 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario despite attending school in Hawaii for several years.

Alternatively, the court held that returning the child to Hawaii posed a risk of serious harm given the child’s escalating behaviour and attempts to remain with the father.

The court therefore exercised jurisdiction in Ontario.

In a child protection proceeding, the child’s father and step‑mother brought a motion seeking an order placing the child in their care and custody.

The court treated the motion as a temporary care and custody hearing under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act because no prior temporary care and custody hearing had been held.

Although the evidence established reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm, the court found that the risk could be adequately addressed through a supervision order while the child remained with the mother and step‑father.

The court emphasized continuity of care, the stage of the proceedings, and the society’s position that supervision was appropriate.

The motion seeking placement with the father and step‑mother was dismissed.