Kenneth Cole

The applicant brought a motion to strike the pleadings of her former husband and his mother for failing to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The husband had repeatedly failed to provide valuations of his business interests and income reports over a period of nine years, offering various excuses related to his retained professionals and the pandemic.

The court found the husband's non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, striking his Answer and allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The mother-in-law's disclosure was also found deficient, but the court granted her one final opportunity to comply before her pleadings could be struck.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a previous order for the sale of a property held by the parties as tenants in common.

The respondent, who was self-represented, had failed to comply with the previous order by delaying the selection of real estate agents and refusing to cooperate with the sale process.

The court found that the respondent had breached the previous order and granted the applicant sole authority to list and sell the property, dispensing with the respondent's consent.

The respondent was ordered to vacate the property within 60 days and to comply with outstanding disclosure obligations.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support following a long-term marriage and the sale of the parties’ shared corporate interests in a real estate development business.

The respondent argued that support should not be ordered due to the applicant’s capital assets, alleged cohabitation with a wealthy partner, and claims that the corporate buyout constituted advance income that would create double recovery.

The court found that the parties were not in equal financial positions post-separation and rejected the argument that the applicant should rely on her partner or exhaust capital.

Pending trial and despite incomplete financial disclosure, the court fixed temporary incomes and applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to determine interim support.

Temporary spousal support of $10,000 per month was ordered retroactive to September 2013, with earlier retroactive support left for determination at trial.

The applicant husband brought a motion for interim spousal support and an advance on equalization to fund his litigation expenses.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which the husband ran a successful art gallery owned entirely by the respondent wife.

The court determined the parties' respective incomes for support purposes, preferring the evidence of the husband's expert valuator over the wife's business consultant.

The court ordered the respondent wife to pay interim spousal support of $5,068 per month and an advance of $100,000 on the husband's expected equalization payment to cover his litigation costs.

Application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of a young child to Australia after the respondent parent remained in Ontario with the child following a trip from Melbourne.

The court considered whether the child’s habitual residence was Australia or Ontario and addressed defences of acquiescence and grave risk of harm under Article 13(b).

The evidence demonstrated that the parties had jointly relocated to Australia with a settled intention to live there, including relinquishing their Ontario residence and establishing living arrangements in Melbourne.

The court rejected claims that the move was merely exploratory and found no clear evidence of consent or acquiescence by the applicant to the child remaining in Ontario.

The respondent also failed to establish the high threshold of grave risk of harm necessary to prevent return.

The child was ordered returned to Australia with conditions and undertakings.

Following a successful motion by the applicant in matrimonial litigation to add additional parties, the court addressed costs on written submissions.

The respondents and proposed respondents had vigorously opposed the motion to add parties and argued that each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing costs articulated in Fong v. Chan, the court held that the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs.

The court found the applicant wholly successful and awarded substantial indemnity costs, subject to proportionality considerations and adjustments to the claimed amount.

Costs totalling $43,586.07 were fixed and apportioned among the former husband and the newly added parties.

The mother brought a motion seeking a custody and access assessment pursuant to s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act in a high‑conflict parenting dispute involving a young child.

The father opposed the motion, arguing that an assessment should only be ordered where “clinical issues” or pathology are present and that the mother’s professional background as a child psychiatrist would create an uneven playing field.

The court reviewed the divergent jurisprudence regarding whether clinical issues are a prerequisite to a s. 30 assessment and concluded that no such requirement exists in the statute.

After considering factors including ongoing parental conflict, unsuccessful mediation attempts, and the child’s age and inability to express views, the court held that an assessment would assist both the parties and the trial judge.

The court ordered a parenting assessment and directed that the parties share the costs equally.

In a long-running family law dispute following a marriage breakdown, the moving party sought to add several individuals, corporations, and family trusts as respondents to address alleged corporate oppression, trust administration issues, and unresolved financial interests linked to matrimonial property and a family trust.

The court considered whether the claims relating to corporate entities and a trust should be addressed within the family law proceeding or separately on the Commercial or Estates lists.

Applying the Family Law Rules and principles regarding the addition of parties, the court held that the issues were sufficiently interconnected with the matrimonial litigation.

Adding the entities and trustee would promote efficiency and avoid duplicative proceedings.

The motion to add several corporate entities, a trust, and an individual as respondents was granted, while requests to add two other proposed parties lacking a direct connection were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a supplementary family arbitration award concerning child support income calculations and spousal support.

She argued the arbitrator erred by using a formula to determine income rather than strictly applying the Federal Child Support Guidelines, by declining to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and by providing insufficient reasons for the spousal support amount and commencement date.

The court held the arbitrator did not err in maintaining the previously ordered income-calculation formula, noting the appellant had originally requested that approach and did not appeal the earlier award.

The court also found no error in declining to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the parties’ agreement, the high income involved, and the atypical circumstances.

Applying the standard of review for arbitral awards, the court concluded there was no palpable and overriding error and that the reasons were adequate when read together with the earlier award.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support under s. 33 of the Family Law Act, seeking both ongoing support and retroactive support following the breakdown of a long-term cohabitation relationship.

The applicant also sought an advance payment of $50,000 in interim disbursements to retain a financial expert for trial.

The court dismissed the request for advance disbursements, finding the applicant had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances required to justify such relief or that he would be unable to proceed to trial without it.

The claim for retroactive support was also declined on an interim basis given the proximity of trial.

However, the court found a prima facie case of entitlement to support and ordered interim spousal support of $1,500 per month until trial.