Kelly Eckert

The parties separated after a lengthy marriage during which the respondent husband was the primary earner and the applicant wife was the primary caregiver.

Following a brief separation, the parties reconciled and signed a marriage contract granting the wife the matrimonial home and its contents in the event of a future separation.

The parties separated again, and the husband sought to set aside the contract on grounds of duress and unconscionability.

The court upheld the contract, finding no duress or inequality of bargaining power.

The court also determined equalization, imputed income to the wife, calculated the husband's income using a three-year average, ordered spousal support, and apportioned the adult child's educational expenses.

This case concerns a motion to change a 2015 consent order regarding child support and parenting.

The primary issues were retroactive child support for 2020, 2021, and 2023, and the father's contribution to private school expenses for 2022-2023.

The court found the father failed to prove 40% parenting time for 2020, ordering retroactive support.

For 2021, the court included the father's significant income from stock option proceeds ($7.5M) for child support purposes, as mandated by Schedule III of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines.

However, applying Section 4 of the Guidelines for high-income earners, the court deemed the full Table amount inappropriate, finding it would constitute an impermissible wealth transfer to the mother.

Instead, the court ordered retroactive support based on doubling the child's budget for that year.

The father was also ordered to contribute to private school tuition, as his withdrawal of consent was deemed unreasonable.

The court also adjusted child support for 2022 and 2023 based on actual parenting time and income.

The respondent father brought a motion for an interim variation of an arbitral child support award, arguing that his child support obligations should be reduced to 'summer support' because two of the adult children were attending post-secondary school away from home.

The court treated the motion as one for an interim variation of a final support order, requiring the father to show a strong prima facie case, a clear case of hardship, urgency, and clean hands.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to provide evidence that the mother's household expenses were significantly reduced or that the table amount produced a windfall, and therefore failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the standard Guidelines approach was inappropriate.

The respondent, Lorne Howard Albaum, brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order, seeking to reduce his monthly payments from $65,625 to $24,340.

He asserted a catastrophic change in his income due to the COVID-19 pandemic and stock market impact, and challenged the applicant's (Donna Jodi Albaum) expenses and corporate income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Lorne failed to meet the heavy onus required to vary an interim order, as the issues raised were largely already considered by the previous judge or existed at the time of the original order.

The court also noted Lorne's lack of updated expert evidence and inconsistencies in his claims of hardship, given his continued privileged lifestyle and delays in litigation.

The parties separated after a long marriage during which the applicant was primarily a homemaker and the respondent built a successful legal career.

At trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property, including the valuation of the respondent's home, his interest in a Florida LLC, and corporate debts.

The court also determined the respondent's income for support purposes, attributing some corporate pre-tax income to him, and ordered retroactive and ongoing spousal support based on both compensatory and needs-based grounds.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a traditional marriage.

The respondent, a high-income earner operating a mini-tender business through various corporations, argued his income was highly volatile and currently nil.

The court applied a cautious approach to income determination on an interim basis, accepting the respondent's expert's calculation of a three-year average income of $1.8 million, which accounted for necessary corporate retained earnings.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $65,625 per month based on the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, commencing February 1, 2021.

Following a successful appeal of a summary judgment order, a dispute arose regarding the settling of the court's order on costs.

The respondents argued that a portion of the motion judge's costs order related to a support motion should remain intact.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that the motion judge had awarded a global amount for all motions, which were intertwined.

The court clarified that the entire costs award below was set aside and reserved to the trial judge.

Jennifer Leitch sought an order to immediately list and sell the matrimonial home (the "Farm") without Anthony Novac's consent and to retain the net proceeds.

Anthony opposed, seeking to participate in the sale and have proceeds held in trust, with certain amounts paid to him for costs and chattels.

The court found Anthony unreasonably withheld consent by imposing conditions.

The court authorized Jennifer to sell the Farm with sole authority over negotiations and closing, subject to agreed-upon terms for listing and a minimum price.

The net proceeds, after payment of a $5,000 Divisional Court costs order, are to be released to Jennifer, rejecting Anthony's request to hold them in trust or for immediate payment of other claimed amounts, to ensure Jennifer's access to justice for ongoing complex litigation.

The appellant wife sought damages for conspiracy against her husband and his family, alleging they diverted business proceeds to reduce her support payments.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing the conspiracy claim and awarded substantial costs against the wife.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by improperly bifurcating issues, misapplying the tort of conspiracy in the family law context, and making palpable factual errors regarding critical evidence.

The Court emphasized that the tort of conspiracy is a valuable tool to deter non-disclosure and ensure collectibility of judgments in family law.

The appeal was allowed, the partial summary judgment and associated costs orders were set aside, and a new trial was ordered before a different judge.

The court awarded the Respondent mother, Evelyn Walsh, full recovery costs of $420,000.00 against the Applicant father, Joshua Louis Goldstein, following a 12-day custody and access trial.

The award was based on the father's bad faith and unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation, including making false allegations, misleading the court, and unduly complicating issues, as well as the mother beating her Rule 18 Offer to Settle.

The court found the father's conduct permeated the litigation, driving up legal fees, and that his truncated Bill of Costs was disingenuous.

The respondent Anthony Novac and third-party respondents (collectively "Novac/Sonco") brought motions for a preservation order and security for costs, respectively, against the applicant Jennifer Ann Leitch.

These motions followed a prior judgment where Leitch was ordered to pay significant costs.

Anthony sought a preservation order for Leitch's assets, including the Caledon farm property, and alternatively, its transfer to him based on a trust claim.

Novac/Sonco sought security for costs and preservation of the farm and artwork.

Leitch opposed, wishing to sell the farm and arguing against priority for creditors and lack of grounds for a Mareva injunction.

The court dismissed Anthony's request for the farm's transfer but granted the preservation orders for the farm and artwork in Leitch's possession, finding that Leitch's financial circumstances and prior unreasonable conduct justified securing the substantial costs awards.

The applicant, Jennifer Ann Leitch, brought a motion for a declaration of conspiracy and damages, while the respondent, Anthony James Charles Novac, brought a cross-motion for a decrease in child and spousal support.

The applicant's motion was dismissed, and the respondent's motion was granted.

This ruling addresses the significant costs sought by the successful respondent and third-party respondents (Novac/Sonco) against the applicant.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, the complexity of the issues, the applicant's unreasonable litigation strategy, and the proportionality of the costs.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments for reducing costs based on the respondent's alleged misrepresentation of income or her limited means, emphasizing that the applicant, a litigation lawyer, understood the risks.

The parties, who never married, sought a final determination of custody, access, and child support for their three-year-old child.

The applicant father sought joint custody and a continuation of a week-about schedule in Toronto, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and primary residence in Buffalo.

The court found that the applicant had previously misled the court to obtain an ex parte custody order and consistently failed to consult the respondent on major decisions, demonstrating an inability to co-parent effectively.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the respondent mother, with a generous access schedule for the applicant father.

The parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses proportionate to their incomes.

This is a second appeal in a child protection matter involving a 10-year-old child made a Crown ward with no access for adoption purposes.

The biological parents appealed the no access order.

The first appeal judge, while finding no error with the trial judge's determination, nonetheless ordered access followed by an openness hearing, made findings of ineffective assistance of counsel against trial counsel, and ordered personal costs against her.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Society's appeal, restored the trial judge's no access order, dismissed the parents' cross-appeal seeking declarations of Charter violations and miscarriage of justice, and allowed trial counsel's cross-appeal on the ineffective assistance findings and costs order.

In a child protection proceeding, the mother's former lawyer brought a motion to set aside the court's previous findings of incompetence and ineffective counsel.

The mother brought a cross-motion for costs against the former lawyer personally under Rule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules.

The court set aside the finding of incompetence, deferring that issue to the Law Society, but upheld the finding that the lawyer provided inadequate and ineffective counsel by failing to order trial transcripts and failing to bring a motion for access pending appeal.

The court found the lawyer's inaction caused a miscarriage of justice and wasted significant costs.

The lawyer was ordered to personally pay $50,000 to Legal Aid and $50,000 to the mother's new counsel.

In a child protection proceeding, the mother's former lawyer brought a motion to set aside the court's previous findings of incompetence and ineffective counsel.

The mother brought a cross-motion for costs against the former lawyer personally under Rule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules.

The court set aside the finding of incompetence, deferring that issue to the Law Society, but upheld the finding that the lawyer provided inadequate and ineffective counsel by failing to order trial transcripts and failing to bring a motion for access pending appeal.

The court found the lawyer's inaction caused a miscarriage of justice and wasted significant costs.

The lawyer was ordered to personally pay $50,000 to Legal Aid and $50,000 to the mother's new counsel.

The appellant estate appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim against the respondent for occupation rent and nursing care expenses.

The estate alleged the respondent unlawfully refused to allow the deceased to return to the matrimonial home after a hospitalization.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of an unlawful refusal; rather, the respondent, due to her own advanced age and frail health, was simply unable to provide the necessary care.

Furthermore, the claim for medical expenses was barred by the parties' marriage contract.

The appeal was dismissed.