Judith Holzman

The applicant mother sought temporary sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the parties' 9-year-old daughter, with the respondent father having parenting time on Wednesdays and Sundays.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to maintain primary residence with himself, with the mother having alternate weekend and mid-week visits.

The court found that the mother's choice of primary residence was reasonable and in the child's best interests.

The court determined that the respondent had engaged in self-help tactics, withheld parenting time from the mother, exposed the child to family violence through denigration of the mother, and demonstrated poor judgment and emotional dysregulation.

The court granted the mother primary residence with a temporary parenting schedule for the father of Wednesdays after school to 8:00 p.m. and alternating Fridays after school to Sundays at 6:00 p.m.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion seeking specified disclosure related to property sales and enforcement of prior non-dissipation orders against the respondent husband.

The wife alleged the husband was dissipating assets and restructuring corporations to move funds out of the court's reach, including the sale of Trehaven Golf without her consent and potentially below market value.

The court found the husband in breach of existing non-dissipation and disclosure orders, noting a pattern of unacceptable conduct.

The court granted the temporary order in accordance with the wife's motion and awarded her $7,500 in costs, emphasizing that the motion was necessary due to the respondent's non-compliance.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary spousal support, retroactive lump sum support, and disclosure from the respondent husband.

The husband denied entitlement, claiming low income and that significant assets belonged to his father.

The court imputed the husband's annual income at $550,000 due to contradictory statements and non-disclosure, finding the wife entitled to support.

The court ordered the husband to pay $20,000 per month in spousal support, retroactive to March 1, 2023, and to provide outstanding financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which his pleadings could be struck.

The wife's request for the husband to renew the mortgage and pay insurance on the matrimonial home was denied.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the wife due to the husband's unreasonable conduct.

The applicant mother brought an urgent, ex parte motion to vary a temporary order regarding the respondent father's in-person access to their children.

The motion was prompted by recent criminal charges against the father for breach of a restraining order and criminal harassment, and concerns from the York Region Children’s Aid Society regarding the father's lack of cooperation.

The court found the motion met the urgency test, temporarily suspending the father's in-person access while granting him nightly telephone or videocall access.

A schedule was set for the father to respond and for a return hearing of the motion.

During a family law trial to determine the parties' date of separation, the respondent sought to admit two emails sent by the applicant in 2004 and 2005.

The emails were recovered from an old company computer hard drive stored at the respondent's home.

The applicant opposed admission, arguing the emails were surreptitiously obtained and violated his expectation of privacy.

The court applied the three-part test for admissibility and admitted the emails, finding they were highly relevant to the separation date, the applicant had a reduced expectation of privacy in the abandoned company computer, and the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

Following a garnishment hearing where the applicant was completely successful, the court determined the costs payable by the respondent.

The applicant sought $20,000, while the respondent proposed $7,500.

The court considered the offers to settle, noting the applicant's offer did not strictly comply with the timing rules but the respondent failed to accept it.

Applying the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a garnishment hearing, the applicant sought the release of $73,160.84 from funds paid into court by the respondent, representing spousal support arrears due to unindexed payments and the respondent's unilateral reduction of support.

The respondent argued for a smaller payout of $14,432.75, citing alleged overpayments.

The court affirmed the principle that separation agreements are binding until varied by court order or new agreement, and unilateral variations are not permissible.

It ordered the full amount requested by the applicant to be paid out, with the remaining funds held in court pending the respondent's motion to vary the spousal support order.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the applicant's unsuccessful motion to reduce spousal support.

The respondent, who was entirely successful on the underlying motion, sought full recovery costs.

The applicant argued for costs to be reserved or awarded on a partial indemnity basis, excluding costs related to a case conference.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and, considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $10,424 all inclusive, payable by the applicant within 60 days.

The court declined to deal with costs of the case conference, noting that a costs decision should be made after each step in a family law case.

The applicant sought to enforce spousal support arrears through a notice of garnishment issued to three major banks.

The respondent filed a notice of dispute.

The banks provided inadequate or incomprehensible responses to the garnishment notices, despite the respondent's financial statement indicating he held assets at these institutions.

The court adjourned the garnishment hearing and ordered representatives from the three banks to attend the next hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to temporarily reduce his spousal support obligation from $25,800 per month to $5,300 per month, alleging a significant drop in income due to the loss of a major client.

The court found the motion premature because the applicant had failed to provide complete financial disclosure for the year in question, preventing the respondent's valuator from analyzing his income.

The motion was adjourned without a date, and the applicant was ordered to continue paying the full support amount until further order or agreement.

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 father brought an urgent motion to reinstate unsupervised access to his three-year-old daughter after the mother unilaterally withheld access based on allegations of sexual abuse.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking supervised access.

The court reviewed the history of investigations by police and child protection authorities, all of which concluded the allegations were unfounded.

Applying the risk of harm analysis, the court found insufficient credible evidence of abuse and determined there was a low risk of harm and significant benefit to the child having a relationship with the father.

The father's motion for unsupervised access was granted and the mother's cross-motion was dismissed.

Following a last-minute trial adjournment attributed to the respondent, the applicant sought costs thrown away of over $125,000.

The court reviewed the dockets to determine which trial preparation costs were genuinely wasted and would need to be redone.

The court excluded costs related to prior motions and disclosure that remained useful.

Costs thrown away were fixed at $18,000 on a substantial recovery basis, plus $2,000 for the adjournment motion, and $6,780 for disbursements and HST, for a total of $29,040 payable forthwith.

Following a four‑day family law trial on a motion to change child and spousal support obligations, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent had sought retroactive rescission of support arrears but was largely unsuccessful, while the applicant obtained a result closer to her final settlement offer.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the parties’ offers to settle and their conduct throughout the litigation.

The court found the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct, including failure to provide disclosure, abandoning earlier proceedings, and making unreasonably low settlement offers.

The applicant was therefore entitled to costs, with substantial indemnity costs awarded for work following her final offer to settle and partial indemnity costs for earlier stages.

The moving party brought a motion to change a 2004 support order seeking retroactive reduction of child and spousal support and rescission of significant arrears.

The court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances under s. 37 of the Family Law Act, including alleged reductions in the payor’s income and increased income of the recipient.

The court found the payor’s evidence regarding reduced income unreliable and concluded his income remained approximately $45,000 annually.

However, the recipient’s increased income and the children ceasing to be dependants constituted material changes.

Applying principles governing retroactive variation and rescission of arrears, the court declined to grant retroactive relief prior to the date notice of variation was given due to delay, non‑disclosure, and blameworthy conduct by the payor.

On an interim parenting motion, the applicant sought sole custody consistent with a s. 30 assessment recommending sole decision‑making authority and expanded access to the respondent.

The respondent sought interim sole custody or, alternatively, a shared parenting arrangement.

The court held that recommendations of an assessor should generally not be implemented on an interim basis absent urgent circumstances and that the status quo had largely been created by unilateral conduct limiting the respondent’s involvement.

Finding both parents capable and loving but engaged in high conflict, the court ordered a temporary 50/50 week‑about parenting schedule with decision‑making authority remaining with the applicant, along with communication and dispute‑resolution provisions including parenting coordination.

A costs decision following a family law motion concerning disclosure of tax information and preservation of joint funds.

The responding party to the motion sought full indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and alleged unreasonable conduct by the opposing parties.

The court held that the result did not exceed the offer to settle and therefore did not justify full indemnity costs under the Family Law Rules.

While the court considered improper filing of a reply affidavit to a reply as unreasonable conduct, it also found the successful party’s claimed legal fees excessive and disproportionate.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in a reduced amount.

The appellant appealed a contempt order and a second motion order arising from family law proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to admit fresh evidence regarding a translated document.

On the main appeal, the Court varied the contempt order to remove findings of breach that were not requested or supported by evidence.

The Court also struck unrequested restraining and child transfer orders, and reversed an order holding the appellant's share of matrimonial home proceeds as security for future child support, finding no evidence that he would fail to comply with future orders.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order regarding custody and parenting time under the Divorce Act.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the 'maximum contact' principle under s. 17(a) of the Divorce Act.

The court noted that the allocation of parenting time was consistent with the appellants' own submissions, albeit made on the assumption they would be the custodial parents.

Minor factual errors by the motion judge were not overriding.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $13,000.