Kiran Sah

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt and non-compliance against the respondents for failing to comply with several prior court orders, including a failure to deposit security for child support and pay costs.

The court found the respondents in contempt and ordered the issuance of a Writ of Temporary Seizure against a property transferred by the respondent to an alter ego trust.

The applicant brought a motion to sever her divorce claim from corollary relief issues, seeking an Ontario divorce before a Russian divorce obtained by the respondent could be recognized.

The court found that severing the divorce could result in a legal disadvantage to the applicant regarding her spousal support claims, given the unsettled law on foreign divorces.

The motion to sever the divorce was dismissed.

The parties separated in 2020 after an 11-year marriage, resulting in a high-conflict parenting dispute over their three children.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making and primary residence, while the respondent mother sought the same.

The court found the applicant had engaged in a pattern of alienating behaviour and exaggerated claims about the respondent's mental health.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule, increasing the respondent's parenting time to approximately 43 percent, while leaving final decision-making with the applicant subject to a duty to consult.

The court also imputed income to both parties ($85,000 to the applicant, $52,000 to the respondent) due to intentional underemployment, ordered the respondent to pay retroactive child support, and ordered the applicant to pay prospective child support.

Spousal support entitlement was found but quantum was set at zero.

The court, on its own initiative, commenced a vexatious litigant proceeding against the respondent under Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent had a lengthy history of initiating multiple proceedings, bringing repetitive motions, failing to pay costs awards, and making unfounded allegations of bias against numerous judges.

The court found that the respondent's conduct demonstrated a pattern of vexatious and abusive litigation behaviour.

The respondent was declared a vexatious litigant and prohibited from instituting or continuing any proceeding in Ontario without first obtaining leave of the court.

The applicant father brought a second motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge.

The father argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because he had commenced a civil action against the judge personally and because the judge had initiated a vexatious litigant proceeding against him under Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a litigant cannot create a conflict of interest or engage in judge shopping simply by suing the presiding judge, and that initiating a vexatious litigant proceeding is a judicial function that does not rebut the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.

The applicant brought a motion for an order finding the respondent non-compliant with a consent parenting order after she unilaterally suspended his parenting time.

The respondent failed to attend the motion.

The court found the respondent in breach of the order and declined to exercise discretion in her favour given her history of non-compliance.

The court ordered police enforcement for future breaches and directed the respondent to pay the applicant $1,000 for every day of missed parenting time, but declined to order make-up time or a 90-day transfer of primary residence.

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

The applicant claimed she managed the respondent's finances and businesses, sacrificing her own career, while the respondent alleged she fraudulently took control of his assets.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for entitlement based on economic interdependence and immediate need.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $878,422 using a three-year average including corporate pre-tax income, and imputed the applicant's income at $35,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim spousal support of $5,842.50 per month.

The court declined to order retroactive support and made the order on an interim-interim basis.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent claimed inability to pay and disputed entitlement.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for spousal support based on her need and the length of the marriage.

Due to inconsistencies in the respondent's financial disclosure and reported expenses far exceeding his reported income, the court imputed his income at $142,598 based on the average of his reported yearly expenses.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered to commence following the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's Answer regarding financial claims due to his failure to comply with multiple court orders, including support and disclosure orders.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion, supported by the applicant but opposed by the respondent wife from his concurrent marriage, seeking the release of funds held in trust from the sale of a property to satisfy his support arrears and future obligations.

The court granted the release of funds, finding it would not prejudice the respondent wife's civil claims for misappropriation.

The court declined to strike the husband's Answer at this time, instead ordering him to provide the outstanding financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which the applicant could renew her motion.

In a spousal support review trial following a 24-year marriage, the court found the respondent entitled to ongoing support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, noting her role in childcare and the applicant's career, as well as her ongoing mental health challenges.

The court determined the applicant's income by rejecting the inclusion of previously vested stock options but adding back certain business expenses, setting his ongoing income at a three-year average of $339,333.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent due to her failure to meaningfully retrain or seek employment, while declining to require her to liquidate her home to generate income.

Indefinite spousal support was ordered at the low end of the SSAG range, and the applicant was credited for an overpayment of child support.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge, alleging bias and procedural unfairness in previous rulings.

The court reviewed the legal test for a reasonable apprehension of bias and examined the father's specific complaints regarding two prior motions.

The court found that the father failed to present any admissible evidence to rebut the presumption of judicial impartiality, noting that his complaints primarily stemmed from a disagreement with the court's application of the law and procedural rules.

The motion for recusal was dismissed, with the court noting the father's history of bringing recusal motions against approximately 20 other judges.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought a divorce, equalization, child support, and spousal support against a respondent who was a fugitive wanted by the FBI for fraud.

The respondent had failed to attorn to Ontario's jurisdiction, breached a Mareva injunction, and fraudulently obtained a divorce in Spain to access frozen assets.

The court refused to recognize the Spanish divorce, granted an immediate Ontario divorce, and imputed the respondent's income at $1,360,000 CAD based on his lavish lifestyle and hidden assets.

The court ordered an equalization payment, retroactive and ongoing child support, and a lump sum spousal support award of over $5.9 million due to the high risk of non-payment, while continuing the worldwide Mareva injunction.

This endorsement addresses a motion regarding the treatment of the parties’ Mahr (Islamic marriage contract) in the context of Ontario’s family property law regime.

The court considers whether the Mahr should be included in the net family property (NFP) calculation, the parties’ pleadings and standing, and issues of fairness.

The court rules that the Mahr is to be included as both a date of marriage and valuation date asset and debt in the NFP calculation, finding no valid withdrawal or agreement to exclude it.

The decision also addresses the parties’ ability to raise unconscionability under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act at a later stage.

This decision concerns a high-conflict family law re-trial regarding the relocation of a five-year-old child from Toronto to Ireland, decision-making responsibility, and parenting time.

The court found a long-standing pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the Respondent, Aamir Saleem Shipton, toward the Applicant, Kathleen Marie Shipton, including family violence, financial control, and isolation.

The court permitted the relocation to Ireland, granted the Applicant sole decision-making authority, and set out a detailed parenting schedule to ensure the child maintains a relationship with both parents and her multicultural heritage.

The decision applies a blended best interests analysis, referencing recent appellate and Supreme Court guidance on relocation, family violence, and the importance of stability and parental well-being.

This uncontested trial endorsement addresses the division of net family property, responsibility for joint lines of credit, and spousal support following the separation of Maria Teresa Del Grosso and Peter (Pietro) Del Grosso.

The court found insufficient evidence to order an equalization payment or to require the respondent to pay off joint lines of credit, due to lack of financial disclosure.

The applicant was awarded spousal support based on imputed income and her demonstrated need, as well as costs.

The decision follows recent appellate guidance on the necessity of adequate evidence for property division.

This uncontested trial endorsement addresses property and spousal support claims following the separation of Maria Teresa Del Grosso and Peter (Pietro) Del Grosso after 35 years of marriage.

The court identifies evidentiary deficiencies regarding the applicant’s claims for equalization of net family property and reimbursement of interest payments on joint lines of credit, as well as the quantum of spousal support.

The trial is adjourned pending further affidavit evidence.

The court determined the date of separation and whether a property was a matrimonial home in a family law dispute.

The applicant claimed separation occurred in 2007 and sought a declaration that the Madawaska property was a matrimonial home.

The respondent argued separation occurred in 2002 and that the property was not a matrimonial home.

After reviewing the evidence, including credibility assessments and the parties’ living arrangements, the court found the parties separated in December 2002 and that the Madawaska property was not a matrimonial home.

The court ordered the removal of the matrimonial home designation from the property’s title.

The respondent brought a motion seeking leave for a licensed paralegal to act as her agent in a family law proceeding, excluding trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while paralegals are regulated by the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) and bound by a code of conduct, their P1 license does not permit representation in the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court.

The court emphasized that Rule 4(1)(c) of the Family Law Rules requires special circumstances for non-lawyer representation, which were not met, and that allowing such representation would undermine the LSO's regulatory framework and compromise the integrity of the justice system.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage.

The court resolved outstanding issues regarding Christmas parenting time, income determination, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court imputed significant corporate pre-tax income and personal benefits to the applicant father, setting his 2023 income at $392,054.

The respondent mother was awarded compensatory spousal support, retroactive child and spousal support, and an equalization payment, with offsets applied for the applicant's post-separation overpayments on joint debts.

This is a costs endorsement following a five-day family law trial.

The applicant sought costs after being largely successful on the primary issues, including the denial of the respondent's relocation request and the establishment of an equal parenting schedule, which aligned with the applicant's offer to settle.

The respondent argued for no costs, citing good faith in her relocation request, her consent to a week-about schedule if the child remained local, and her limited financial means.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, noting the respondent's unreasonable position on parenting time and her failure to engage in settlement discussions or provide a bill of costs as required by the Family Law Rules.

While acknowledging the respondent's financial constraints, the court balanced this with the applicant's settlement efforts and the respondent's conduct.

The court awarded the applicant $8,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable in installments.