Kira Harriet Beck

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law trial regarding the primary residence of a four-year-old child, S.P., following the separation of her parents, Sanjay Patel and Beejal Yogesh Sesha Patel.

The court considered issues of relocation, parenting time, decision-making responsibility, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that it was in S.P.'s best interests to continue residing with her mother in London, England, and for the existing parenting schedule to remain in place.

The court also ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, retroactive spousal support, and set out directions for the continuation of the trial on outstanding financial issues.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Dianne Pearl Douglas from a final order in a family law proceeding concerning parental decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in finding a material change in circumstances and in determining that the respondent’s parenting time met the 40% threshold under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Court found no error in the motion judge’s findings or application of the law, upholding the retroactive adjustment to child support and awarding costs to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,620 all inclusive.

The applicant mother sought an advance on equalization of $10,505,000 to address significant income tax liabilities related to corporate assets managed by the respondent father in her name.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to set aside or vary existing preservation orders, arguing financial transparency and hardship.

The court granted the applicant an advance on equalization of $7,975,007.60, finding a clear need for the funds to discharge tax liabilities created by the respondent and that the advance would not exceed the likely final equalization payment.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, finding his financial disclosure lacked transparency and his claims of hardship were unsubstantiated.

The mother brought a motion for an interim order permitting her to relocate to London, England with the parties' two-year-old child to accept a lucrative job offer and be closer to her family support network.

The father brought a cross-motion for a graduated parenting plan in Ontario.

The court granted the mother's motion to relocate, finding that she was the primary caregiver and that the father failed to meet the burden of proving the relocation was not in the child's best interests.

The court also addressed several evidentiary objections, striking surreptitious recordings and certain reply evidence, while allowing the evidence of a treating doctor as a participant expert.

The father's cross-motion was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay costs of $23,640.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary sealing orders, publication bans, exclusion of the public from proceedings, and initialization of names.

The primary purpose of these orders was to prevent the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from becoming aware of a multi-million dollar tax liability, thereby preserving the applicant's ability to apply to the CRA's Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP).

The tax liability allegedly arose from the respondent father's financial actions during the marriage, including failing to file tax returns for a company in which the applicant was a shareholder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that preventing financial harm to children by hiding tax liability from the CRA was not an "important public interest" sufficient to override the open court principle under the *Sherman Estate* test.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Steele J. dated September 27, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed in the amount of $3,500.

The applicant mother sought an interim order to relocate with the parties' two children from Toronto to Ottawa due to a mandatory military posting.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing British Columbia was the children's habitual residence.

The court found Ontario had jurisdiction as the children were habitually resident there pursuant to the parties' separation agreement.

The court granted the interim relocation, finding compelling circumstances, and ordered a flexible parenting schedule for the father.

The court declined to order child support, finding the father would suffer undue hardship due to the high costs of travel to exercise parenting time and his existing support obligations for two other children.

The applicant appealed two arbitration awards.

The court partially granted the appeal regarding a property expense accounting issue (declaring the award a nullity due to lack of written agreement for jurisdiction) and dismissed the appeal regarding children's expenses.

This endorsement addresses costs.

The court found divided success but noted the applicant's unreasonable conduct in challenging jurisdiction on appeal after previously agreeing to arbitration.

Despite partial success, the applicant was deprived of costs for the issue she won, and the respondent was awarded $10,000 in costs for the issue he won, reflecting the applicant's unreasonable conduct and the respondent's more reasonable settlement efforts.

The applicant appealed two arbitration awards concerning family law matters, challenging the arbitrator's originating jurisdiction and whether he exceeded his authority.

The court held that the arbitrator had originating jurisdiction based on the parties' separation agreement and minutes of settlement, despite the absence of a separate prescribed family arbitration agreement, but noted that such awards are not enforceable without regulatory compliance.

The appeal regarding children's expenses was dismissed, upholding the arbitrator's decision.

However, the appeal concerning the Forest Hill property expenses was allowed, as the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction on that issue because the agreement to arbitrate it was not in writing as required by the separation agreement.