Justin Jeongmin Lee

This decision addresses interim parenting arrangements and a temporary relocation request in the context of serious allegations of family violence.

The court finds that the mother, Swati Kaushik, should retain sole decision-making responsibility and that the children should remain primarily in her care in New Jersey until trial or August 31, 2025.

The court applies the Supreme Court’s guidance in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, emphasizing the impact of family violence on the best interests of the children and the appropriateness of temporary relocation in such circumstances.

The restraining order is rescinded, and costs are awarded to the mother.

The respondent father sought a s. 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act or, alternatively, multi-faceted family therapy.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction as all issues had been resolved by Minutes of Settlement, which included a dispute resolution mechanism.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the parties had settled all issues and there was no active proceeding before the court.

The court further noted that even if it had jurisdiction, a s. 30 assessment was not warranted given the extensive prior professional involvement and the intrusive, costly nature of such assessments.

This motion concerned a father's request to increase his parenting time with his nine-year-old child, T., from one hour per week to extended Saturday visits, including potential overnights.

The mother opposed the increase and sought an investigation by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found it had jurisdiction to vary the temporary consent orders without requiring a material change in circumstances, as the orders were "without prejudice" and intended for progressive reacquaintance.

The court determined that increased parenting time was in the child's best interests, emphasizing the child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents.

Despite the child's expressed preferences for limited contact and a history of family violence (conviction against the father eight years prior), the court found no current risk of violence.

The court ordered an OCL investigation and increased the father's parenting time to 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. every Saturday, with a future transition to alternating weekend overnights after three months, contingent on the father taking a parenting course and a transition plan being agreed upon.

The order is subject to review.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking to strike the Applicant's pleadings, order supervised parenting time, grant temporary sole decision-making responsibility for the children, and disburse the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the Applicant's conduct to be egregious, characterized by numerous breaches of court orders, vexatious litigation, and abusive behaviour.

The court granted the majority of the Respondent's requests, striking the Applicant's pleadings (with an exception for participation in parenting issues at trial), ordering supervised parenting time at the Applicant's sole cost, granting the Respondent temporary sole decision-making responsibility, and directing the release of matrimonial home proceeds to the Respondent.

The court declined to order a psychiatric assessment of the Applicant, finding the conduct, while troubling, did not meet the threshold for such an order, particularly given the imposition of supervised parenting.

A request for a restraining order against the Respondent's family members was also denied due to insufficient evidence and statutory limitations.

The Applicant sought monetary damages for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture, an order for no equalization payment, and a lump sum spousal support payment.

The Respondent opposed these claims.

The court found that the Applicant had established unjust enrichment within a joint family venture due to her contributions to the Respondent's business (GS Medical) and household, and her corresponding deprivation (giving up her career, underpaid/unpaid labor).

The court also found the Applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, noting the luxurious lifestyle during cohabitation and the Applicant's economic disadvantage.

Due to the Respondent's lack of financial disclosure, adverse inferences were drawn regarding the value of his business.

The court awarded the Applicant $3,000,000 for unjust enrichment and $365,624.00 net of tax for lump sum spousal support, plus prejudgment interest.

The divorce application was granted.