Unlock 7 more sections of this judge’s background. Start your 7-day free trial.
Appeared as counsel in 8 cases (2012–2020)
5 total
Application for return of children to Germany under Hague Convention granted; grave risk exception not established.
The applicant mother brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two children to Germany.
The respondent father had travelled with the children to Ontario under the guise of a vacation and subsequently claimed refugee status, alleging the children were at risk of abuse from the mother.
The court found that the children were habitually resident in Germany and were wrongfully retained in Ontario.
The court rejected the father's argument that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation under Article 13(b) of the Convention, noting that the German authorities had previously investigated and dismissed his allegations.
The court ordered the immediate return of the children to Germany and awarded the mother $83,000 in costs on a full indemnity basis due to the father's bad faith conduct.
Former common-law partner awarded ongoing spousal support terminating after 12 years.
The applicant and respondent were common-law partners for approximately 13 years who separated in June 2015.
Shortly after separation, the respondent sold the assets of his patient transfer business for over $5,000,000.
The applicant sought spousal support and a share of the sale proceeds.
The proprietary claims were resolved on consent for $1,220,000.
At trial, the court determined the applicant's continuing entitlement to spousal support on a primarily non-compensatory basis, finding the respondent's income ranged from $257,000 to $517,000 between 2020 and 2023.
The court rejected the applicant's claim that the respondent's conduct constituted a gross repudiation of the relationship under s. 33(10) of the Family Law Act.
Ongoing spousal support was fixed at $5,079 per month, with retroactive adjustments for 2020-2024, terminating June 30, 2027.
The court granted summary judgment enforcing a family law settlement and declared the respondent the beneficial owner of third-party properties to satisfy an equalization payment.
The applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking enforcement of an accepted offer to settle dated July 15, 2022, which the respondent Kevin Niessen accepted on September 8, 2023.
The offer included an equalization payment of $950,000 to be satisfied through transfer of property.
The respondent failed to pay the equalization payment within the required 90-day period.
The applicant also sought declarations regarding beneficial ownership of properties and enforcement of the equalization payment against properties owned by Rita Niessen and 20 Valley Communities Inc. The court found that the respondent had engaged in a pattern of asset transfers and encumbrances to avoid satisfying the equalization payment, including fraudulent transfer of jointly-owned property.
The court granted summary judgment in favour of the applicant, enforcing the settlement terms and declaring the respondent to be the beneficial owner of the disputed properties.
Parenting order varied to grant father sole decision-making and primary residence; mother's income imputed.
This decision concerns a motion to change parenting arrangements and child support for a seven-year-old child with special needs.
The court found a material change in circumstances, including the child's autism diagnosis and a shift in primary residence to the father after the mother left for India.
The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, with structured parenting time for the mother.
The court also varied travel and child support provisions, imputing income to the mother based on gifts and her earning capacity.
Children returned to mother under supervision order after Society heavily criticized for failing to expand access.
The Society sought an order for extended society care with no access for two young children.
The mother sought the return of the children to her care subject to supervision.
The court found the children in need of protection due to historical housing instability and conflict, but noted the mother had made significant progress, secured stable housing, and improved her parenting skills.
The court heavily criticized the Society for failing to expand the mother's access and for unreasonably opposing a temporary court order for overnight visits.
Concluding that the protection concerns could be mitigated by terms of supervision, the court dismissed the Society's application for extended care and ordered the children returned to the mother under a 9-month supervision order.
