Kiteley

The applicant, George Chuvalo, brought a family law proceeding.

The respondent wife argued that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 10(2) of the Divorce Act to allow for reconciliation.

The court held a trial on the threshold issue of whether the applicant had the capacity to decide to reconcile or divorce.

Relying on expert medical evidence, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to decide whether to reconcile, as he could not appreciate the consequences of such a decision.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as his litigation guardian.

The court held a case conference to determine next steps in a complex family law dispute involving multiple proceedings, including a guardianship application.

The core issues were whether the applicant husband had the capacity to instruct counsel and to seek a divorce, and whether the parties desired to reconcile under s. 10 of the Divorce Act.

The court ordered a five-day trial to determine these discrete issues of capacity and reconciliation, imposing time limits on the presentation of evidence and placing the burden of proof on the applicant husband.

The applicant sought to adjourn the scheduled trial date in a complex family law and trust proceeding.

The respondent opposed the adjournment.

The court found that the trial date had to be vacated because the parties were not ready, there had been no meaningful settlement conference, and updated financial statements had not been provided.

The court vacated the trial date and scheduled a case conference to set a new timetable and trial date.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal procedural orders that adjourned her motion for default judgment and directed the defendants to bring a motion to set aside the noting in default.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the procedural orders were appropriate case management directions and the plaintiff failed to meet the strict test under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the defendants.

The parties were involved in a combined family law and civil trial.

The wife claimed the date of separation was January 2009, while the husband claimed October 2012.

The court found the date of separation was January 2009 and dismissed the husband's claims for equalization and spousal support due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and lack of evidence.

In the civil action, the court found the husband committed civil fraud by making false representations to the wife regarding funds from a diamond mining venture, resulting in a loss of over $1.2 million.

The court awarded damages for fraud against the husband and found his mother was unjustly enriched by receiving funds belonging to the wife.

The respondent sought costs of over $16,000 for several case conferences and a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, who was later represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, had failed to attend conferences and her former counsel caused undue delay.

The court awarded the respondent $4,000 in costs payable by the applicant for the conferences and motion preparation, and $1,500 payable personally by the applicant's former counsel for unnecessary attendances caused by her delay and unresponsiveness.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to require the respondent father to contribute to the post-secondary education (section 7) expenses of their two children.

The court imputed income to the applicant based on full-time employment at her current hourly rate.

The court established a formula for sharing the section 7 expenses, requiring the children to apply for student loans and grants and contribute a percentage (up to 40%) of the remaining costs, with the parents sharing the balance proportionate to their incomes.

The respondent was ordered to pay his proportionate share of the expenses in addition to the table amount of child support.

The applicant mother commenced proceedings in Ontario seeking sole custody and permission to relocate to Texas, despite a prior Florida order governing custody.

The respondent father consented to the relocation shortly after, and the mother moved to Texas.

The parties subsequently consented to dismiss the Ontario application and answer, leaving costs to be determined.

The court found the mother acted unreasonably in launching the Ontario proceedings and maintaining that Ontario had jurisdiction after moving to Texas.

The mother was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the father.

The parties made submissions regarding the costs of two prior motions dealing with parenting and child support.

The applicant sought costs on a full or partial recovery basis, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found that success was divided on both motions and that the applicant's costs were disproportionate.

The court ordered that neither party shall pay or recover costs.

Following the dismissal of the father's motion regarding his daughter's withdrawal from parental control, the daughter and mother sought costs.

The court found that while the father did not act in bad faith, he acted unreasonably by omitting relevant evidence, relying on inadmissible letters, using accusatory language, and failing to respond to offers to settle.

The daughter was awarded full indemnity costs of $6,063.52.

The mother's claim for costs was dismissed as her participation was not necessary.

Following a motion on the admissibility of evidence in a family law arbitration, the successful applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis and costs thrown away due to the adjournment of the arbitration.

The court awarded significant costs for the motion, noting the complexity of the issues, but declined to order full recovery as neither party acted unreasonably.

The request for costs thrown away was dismissed because the interruption did not warrant such an order and the applicant relied on estimates rather than actual costs.

At a Trial Management Conference, the court provided directions for an uncontested trial on financial issues following the striking of the applicant's pleadings.

The respondent was ordered to file a trial record, including an affidavit for the uncontested trial, and the trial was scheduled for February 2017.

The applicant was permitted to attend but prohibited from participating.

At a Trial Management Conference for custody and access issues, the self-represented applicant attempted to include financial issues in her brief.

The court noted that the applicant's claims regarding financial issues had been previously struck and she was prohibited from participating in the trial on those issues.

The court struck the irrelevant materials from her brief, set the witness lists and time estimates for the custody and access trial, and provided procedural directions for filing the trial record and form 35.1.

At a case conference in a high-conflict family law proceeding, the court noted the children were living in increasingly chaotic and harmful circumstances.

The respondent mother had been granted sole authority to decide the son's school, but the son was not attending regularly and was completely detached.

Recognizing that the Superior Court could not relieve the chaos and that the Children's Aid Society was deferring to the court, the judge ordered a stay of all proceedings, including the applicant father's trust claims, to allow the Society to investigate and potentially apprehend the children.

The applicant mother, residing in Alberta, brought an application to vary child support for post-secondary expenses against the respondent father, residing in Ontario.

The matter was referred to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an interjurisdictional hearing via video-conference.

The court adjourned the hearing to allow for further disclosure and cross-examination, and ordered the respondent to pay an interim amount towards tuition.

The children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss the father's appeal of a child protection order for delay or, in the alternative, on the merits.

The father had experienced delays in obtaining legal aid and transcripts, and had recently been charged with criminal offences resulting in a bail condition prohibiting contact with the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay was not unreasonable given the circumstances and that the appeal had merit.

The court emphasized that the father is presumed innocent of the criminal charges and that the appeal could be heard before the expiration of the current supervision order.

The applicant brought a motion without notice seeking the return of his passport, the wiping out of child support arrears, and a declaration that a 2013 Ontario provisional order reducing his child support was in force.

The provisional order had been sent to New Brunswick, where the respondent resides, but the New Brunswick court refused to confirm it in 2015.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to order Passport Canada or the New Brunswick Family Responsibility Office to take action, nor could it declare the unconfirmed provisional order to be in force or wipe out the arrears.

At the resumption of a family law trial, the husband brought a motion for an adjournment because he was in India and unable to retrieve his passport to travel to Canada.

The court granted the adjournment but noted significant non-compliance by both parties with a previous detailed trial management endorsement.

To ensure the trial proceeded in an orderly fashion and concluded within the available time, the court imposed strict time limits pursuant to Rule 1(7.2) of the Family Law Rules, allocating 35 hours to each party for all steps in the trial.

At a case conference, the court addressed scheduling issues arising from the late delivery of the respondent's disclosure and expert reports.

The court directed that the applicant's motion for interim disbursements proceed in writing due to counsel scheduling conflicts.

The court also scheduled a combined trial management and settlement conference and declined to reserve the costs of the case conferences to the trial judge, ordering that neither party recover costs.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support and the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed, relying on an Iranian marriage contract and seeking to freeze the funds as security for an equalization payment.

The court dismissed the motion for temporary spousal support, finding that while the applicant established entitlement, his financial stress would be alleviated by the release of the home proceeds.

The court ordered the equal division and release of the $480,000 held in trust, rejecting the respondent's attempt to freeze the funds under section 12 of the Family Law Act.