Kristen Normandin

The parties separated but continued to reside in the matrimonial home with their two children, sharing parenting time equally.

Following the sale of the matrimonial home, the mother brought an interim motion to relocate with the children from mid-town Toronto to Thornhill, citing housing affordability.

The court found the proposed move constituted a relocation under the Divorce Act, as it would significantly impact the father's relationship with the children by eliminating overnight visits and increasing travel time.

Applying the principles for temporary relocation, the court concluded the mother failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify the move on an interim basis, noting comparable housing was available in Toronto.

The motion was dismissed as the relocation was not in the children's best interests.

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract executed two days before the parties' wedding in 2006.

The court found that the respondent failed to disclose significant assets, including $540,000 in collateral mortgages, and provided opaque disclosure regarding corporate interests.

The court also found the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract to be unconscionable, as it was presented 13 days before the wedding after significant financial and social commitments had been made.

The marriage contract was set aside pursuant to section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking a declaration that the respondent husband breached a prior court endorsement, an Automatic Order, and Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules regarding financial disclosure.

The court found the husband in breach of the Automatic Order for failing to provide complete tax and disability income documentation, and noted a prior breach of the endorsement regarding his attendance at questioning.

The court ordered the husband to comply with the Automatic Order and to provide comprehensive responses and supporting documents to the wife's Request for Information, particularly concerning his expenses, bank statements, and unilateral withdrawals from a joint line of credit.

The parties separated after 16 years of marriage.

The father was criminally charged and subsequently breached a temporary court order requiring him to maintain the family's financial status quo.

On the mother's motion for financial relief, the court found the father in breach of the prior order and directed the sale of the matrimonial home.

To remedy the breach and provide support, the court ordered the father to pay $357,180 in lump sum retroactive child and spousal support, $30,000 in costs for an abandoned parenting motion, and $150,000 in interim disbursements, all to be paid from his share of the home's net sale proceeds.

The applicant's motion for contempt of court against the respondent was dismissed.

The respondent sought full recovery costs of $61,700, arguing the applicant acted in bad faith by using the contempt motion to intimidate her into changing a final order regarding medical decisions.

The court found the applicant's behaviour unreasonable and motivated by a desire to inflict financial and emotional harm, constituting bad faith under rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules.

The court fixed costs payable to the respondent on a full recovery basis in the sum of $55,000.

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 trial decision resolved outstanding family law issues between the parties following their separation, including parenting time, child support, spousal support, occupation rent, and the child's surname.

The court ordered a gradual increase in the father's parenting time to six and then seven nights out of fourteen, conditional on his compliance with strict allergy and safety protocols for the child.

The court calculated child support based on a grossed-up income for the father to account for undeclared rental income and ordered proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses.

Finally, the court dismissed the mother's claim for spousal support, dismissed the father's claim for occupation rent, and permitted the mother to change the child's surname to a hyphenated combination of both parents' names.

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.

The Applicant sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and distribution of its contents.

The Respondent opposed the sale and filed a cross-motion to amend his pleadings to include a claim for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court affirmed the Applicant's prima facie right to sale, finding that the Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case for a competing interest, such as exclusive possession, under the Family Law Act.

The Respondent's arguments regarding his health, financial vulnerability, and the stability of an adult child were not persuasive enough to defeat the sale.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home and allowed the Respondent to amend his pleadings, but with costs payable to the Applicant.

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.