Kristen Normandin

The respondent husband brought a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home to obtain funds for legal expenses and to continue making support payments.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, arguing that she had established a prima facie case for a vesting order to satisfy her claims for equalization and spousal support, and that the sale would prejudice her rights.

The court found that the wife had established a prima facie case for substantial equalization and retroactive spousal support payments exceeding the husband's equity in the home, and that the wife would suffer prejudice if the home were sold before trial.

The motion was dismissed.

This decision addresses parenting time, joint decision-making, family violence, and property issues between Chevdet Alievski and Xhensila Alievski.

The court found that both parties are capable parents but that the mother was subjected to controlling and emotionally abusive behaviour during the marriage.

The court ordered joint decision-making, with the mother having the final say in the event of an impasse (except where a professional is involved), and implemented a 2-2-5-5 shared parenting schedule.

The court also addressed property division, including the treatment of a joint account and a $40,000 exclusion, and declined to award prejudgment interest.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act and Family Law Act due to significant mortgage and property tax arrears, and a civil action initiated by the bank.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it was premature and would prejudice her family law claims, including spousal support and equalization.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding the sale inevitable given the financial circumstances and the bank's actions, and that delaying it would cause further hardship.

The court also set terms for the sale process.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside or stay an automatic financial disclosure order, pending a summary judgment motion to determine the enforceability of a 1995 separation agreement that included a spousal support waiver.

The applicant argued that disclosure was necessary to defend against the summary judgment motion.

The court declined to order the full disclosure mandated by the automatic order (Rule 8.0.1 of the Family Law Rules), finding that the threshold issue of the separation agreement's validity should be determined first.

The court emphasized that current financial disclosure was not relevant to the validity of the 1995 agreement and that ordering it would be disproportionate and could derail the pending summary judgment motion.

The Applicant sought orders for a significant distribution from the net proceeds of sale of a jointly held property and substantial interim legal fees and disbursements.

The Respondent opposed, proposing a smaller, equal distribution of proceeds and challenging the quantum of interim fees.

The court ordered an equal distribution of $250,000 to each party from the sale proceeds and significantly reduced the Applicant's requested interim fees, ordering the Respondent to pay $725,000 for the Applicant's future litigation expenses.

The court found the Applicant's claims for spousal support and equalization had merit, but emphasized the need for reasonableness in fee requests and the complexity of financial disclosure.

Following a five-day family law trial where the respondent was entirely successful, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $340,000 based on multiple offers to settle.

The applicant failed to file responding costs submissions despite court reminders.

The court found the applicant took unreasonable positions and failed to comply with financial disclosure obligations.

However, considering negative findings regarding the respondent's historical income and the high rates charged by counsel, the court fixed costs at $250,000 payable by the applicant, enforceable as a support order.

The court heard two motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought child and spousal support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and authority to sell the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought to vary a preservation order to allow the sale of pharmacies.

The court dismissed both motions, finding the evidentiary records insufficient and noting the parties' complex financial arrangements and potential breaches of the preservation order.

The court ordered the matter to proceed to trial, directed the release of trust funds to pay matrimonial home debts, and ordered interim child support.

The parties, who cohabited for 15 months and had one child, separated in January 2021.

The applicant sought sole decision-making, relocation, and significant child and spousal support, alleging the respondent earned $900,000 annually from drug dealing.

The court ordered joint decision-making and denied the relocation, imposing a 10km geographic restriction.

The court imputed a high income to the respondent for 2021 based on lavish spending but declined to impute illegal income prospectively, setting his 2022/2023 income at minimum wage.

The applicant's income was imputed significantly higher for 2022/2023 based on bank deposits.

Spousal support was awarded for 2021 only.

After crediting the respondent for condo carrying costs and support overpayments, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $54,472.88.

This motion concerned the appropriate school enrollment for the parties' four-year-old daughter, Nyla, for Junior Kindergarten.

The applicant father proposed Rose Avenue Junior Public School in downtown Toronto, near the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother proposed Crestview Public School in North York, near her residence where the child spends the majority of her time.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle and considering factors such as primary caregiver, stability, support networks, and commute times for the child, found in favour of the respondent mother's proposed school.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion to vary a Preservation and Non-Dissipating Order to permit the purchase of three pharmacies and the sale of two others, proposing to hold net proceeds in trust.

The Respondent opposed, arguing that the Applicant's financial disclosure was inadequate and that varying the order would prejudice her claims for equalization, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding that the Applicant had not provided sufficient security to meet anticipated obligations due to significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in his financial disclosures regarding net worth, income, and asset leveraging.

The court emphasized the need for full transparency to assess the magnitude of the Respondent's claims and the Applicant's ability to satisfy them.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal and child support, section 7 expenses, and a preservation order.

The parties cohabited for a short period and had one child.

The applicant argued the respondent's declared income of $140,400 did not match his lavish lifestyle, which included luxury cars, designer clothing, and expensive watches.

The court imputed an income of $400,000 to the respondent based on a lifestyle analysis and unexplained cash expenditures.

The court also imputed $50,000 to the applicant.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $8,553 per month, table child support of $3,099 per month, and granted a preservation order over the respondent's condominium and investment accounts due to a real risk of dissipation.

An appeal concerning the termination of child support for two adult children and a costs order.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in applying the material change in circumstances test under the Divorce Act, specifically by misplacing the onus of proof on the recipient parent to demonstrate the children's inability to withdraw from parental charge, and by failing to consider the parties' original contemplation of post-secondary education.

The court also identified an inconsistency between the motion judge's reasons and the final order regarding the termination of support for the second child.

The appeal was allowed, reinstating child support and setting aside the costs order.

The Respondent brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, while the Applicant brought a cross-motion for spousal and child support and for the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for the sale of the home, finding it was not in the children's best interests due to their special needs and the need for stability, and that the Respondent had no urgent need for the funds.

The Applicant's motion for spousal and child support was dismissed as the court found no evidentiary basis to impute income to the Respondent at the interim stage.

The Applicant's request for OCL involvement was granted to provide unbiased evidence regarding the children's best interests.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the court held a focused trial to determine parenting and child support issues for three children.

The court considered whether to release the two younger children from a court-ordered parenting schedule based on their views and preferences.

The court released the 16-year-old child from the schedule effective August 2022 but declined to release the 14-year-old child.

The applicant mother was granted sole decision-making authority.

The court also calculated child support and section 7 expense arrears, ordering the respondent father to pay outstanding amounts.

Ongoing child support was reduced to $1,850 per month to reflect the shared parenting arrangement and the eldest child attending university.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding decision-making and parenting time for their seven-year-old daughter.

The father sought sole decision-making and the continuation of a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule, while the mother sought sole decision-making, a reduction in the father's parenting time, and a change to the child's surname.

The court found that neither parent should have sole decision-making due to the risk of marginalizing the other, and instead ordered a parallel parenting regime with divided domains of authority.

The court maintained the 2/2/3 schedule to provide stability and dismissed the mother's request to change the child's surname.

Following a three-week family law trial regarding parenting time and decision-making responsibility, both parties sought costs exceeding $200,000.

The court found that the parties achieved equal success at trial and that both had engaged in unreasonable behaviour that unnecessarily protracted the litigation.

Considering the parties' limited financial means and the best interests of the child, the court ordered that no costs be payable by either party.

The applicant father sought joint decision-making and expanded parenting time, including overnights, for his four-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time, raising concerns about the father's alcohol use and unverified allegations of abuse.

The court awarded sole decision-making to the mother due to the parents' high conflict and poor communication.

The court granted the father expanded parenting time, including overnights and summer access, finding it in the child's best interests to have a meaningful relationship with him.

However, the father was ordered to complete an alcohol abuse program and use a breathalyzer device before and during his parenting time until completion.

The Applicant Father sought to exclude private investigator surveillance evidence obtained by the Respondent Mother, arguing she failed to provide complete disclosure of the investigators' files despite multiple court orders.

The Mother sought leave to admit the evidence under Rule 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the Mother's failure to disclose the complete file prejudiced the Father's ability to assess the evidence and prepare for trial.

Given the highly prejudicial nature of the videos, the lack of full disclosure, and the inability to cross-examine the investigators, the court excluded the surveillance evidence in its entirety, including for the purpose of impeachment.

The respondent's motion for the return of the children to Scotland under the Hague Convention was previously dismissed.

The applicant sought costs of $99,809.24 on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour: the respondent filed improper reply evidence and made unfounded reports to child protection services, while the applicant removed the children from Scotland without the respondent's consent under the guise of a sham access arrangement.

Finding no bad faith or applicable offers to settle, the court declined to award full indemnity costs and ordered the respondent to pay costs of $40,000.