Kristy Ann Maurina

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

The wife sought a resulting trust interest or unequal division of the husband's investment portfolio, which had grown significantly post-separation.

The court dismissed the trust and unequal division claims, finding the equalization of net family property regime applied.

Both parties were found to be intentionally under-employed, and incomes were imputed to both for support purposes.

The husband was ordered to pay an equalization payment, retroactive child support, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The applicant husband brought a motion to strike the respondent wife's pleadings, dispense with her consent to the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home, and obtain temporary exclusive possession.

The wife had repeatedly failed to comply with a prior consent order requiring her to cooperate in listing the home for sale and to provide financial disclosure, and she did not attend the motion.

The court declined to strike the wife's pleadings at this stage but granted the husband sole carriage of the sale and temporary exclusive possession of the home to facilitate its sale, along with costs.

The applicant father sought to re-open an already decided appeal based on new text message evidence from the respondent mother, which he argued undermined her previous narrative regarding their child's residency in Dubai.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the application, reiterating that re-opening an appeal is a rare event reserved for cases of "very serious injustice." The court found the new evidence irrelevant to its original decision, which focused on the need to respect a U.K. Consent Custody Order and for the father to pursue the matter in the U.K. first, rather than making credibility findings.

Costs were awarded against the father.

The father brought an application under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) seeking the return of their child to Dubai, claiming wrongful retention in Ontario.

The application judge ordered the child's return to Dubai, erroneously applying the Hague Convention framework despite the UAE not being a signatory.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error, as s. 40 CLRA is distinct from the Hague Convention, particularly regarding the concept of "habitual residence" and the court's broad discretionary powers.

The appeal was allowed, the lower order set aside, and the father's application stayed on condition he commence proceedings in the UK, where a prior consent custody order existed.

On appeal from trial judge Sutherland's orders regarding spousal support and property division in a separation agreement dispute.

The trial judge found no basis to set aside the separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act but applied the Miglin test under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act to award modest lump sum spousal support of $143,933 despite a spousal support waiver in the agreement.

The trial judge concluded the waiver did not substantially comply with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The father appealed seeking to set aside the property provisions; the mother cross-appealed seeking to uphold the agreement in its entirety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's application of the law to the facts.

Following a successful motion for child and spousal support where income was imputed to the respondent husband, the applicant wife sought costs.

The court applied the Family Law Rules costs framework, noting the husband's unreasonable delay in disclosure and his failure to make a reasonable settlement offer.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $7,500 against the husband and $500 against the husband's brother, who had intervened unnecessarily.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal and child support.

The core issue was determining the respondent husband's income, as he is a lawyer who deducted personal legal fees and other unreasonable expenses from his business income.

The court imputed the husband's income at $248,356 by adding back these deductions and grossing them up.

The court ordered the husband to pay interim spousal support of $2,300 per month and interim child support of $459 per month, leaving retroactive claims and final determinations for trial.

The applicant, Scott Henderson, brought a motion seeking a temporary order to fix monthly arrears payments at $3907.10 USD, pending the adjudication of his motion to vary a 2009 final support order.

The respondent, Suzanne Henderson, opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that Arizona authorities had jurisdiction over arrears enforcement.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding it improper as it sought to amend a final order without a live Motion to Change, and premature as there was no active application to vary the original order.

The court clarified that the proper remedy was a Motion to Change and noted that Arizona authorities, under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, were empowered to set the monthly amount to be deducted for arrears.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' one-year-old child to Pennsylvania.

The respondent mother had unilaterally removed the child to Ontario, arguing that Pennsylvania was not the child's habitual residence, that the father had acquiesced to the move, and that returning would expose the child to a grave risk of harm due to domestic violence.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Pennsylvania, the father did not acquiesce, and the mother failed to establish that Pennsylvania courts could not protect her from the alleged harm.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to Pennsylvania.

The applicant father sought costs following the settlement of a Hague Convention application for the return of the children to the Netherlands.

The respondent mother had heavily resisted the application and brought an unsuccessful motion to adjourn the hearing.

The court noted the mother's lack of corroborating evidence for her claims of abuse and grave risk of harm, contrasting it with the father's extensive corroborating affidavits.

The court awarded the applicant father partial indemnity costs of $15,000 for the application, $2,000 for the adjournment motion, and ordered the previously awarded $5,000 to be payable forthwith, for a total of $22,000.

This case involved two motions within a Hague Convention application concerning the wrongful removal of four children from the Netherlands to Canada by the respondent mother.

The applicant father sought the children's return and parenting time, while the respondent sought an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to investigate.

The court dismissed the respondent's OCL motion, emphasizing the Hague Convention's principle of prompt return and the inappropriateness of using an OCL investigation to delay proceedings or ascertain children's views in this context.

The court found that wrongful removal was established based on a Dutch court order confirming joint parental authority and habitual residence in the Netherlands, and the respondent's misrepresentation of her intent to return.

The applicant's motion for parenting time was granted, establishing a schedule for video calls.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, with payment deferred to the judge hearing the main application.

The father appealed a lower court's order that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over their child, Julia, and ordered her return to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) following the father's unilateral removal of Julia from the UAE.

The father sought a stay of this order pending appeal, arguing serious harm to Julia if returned.

The mother opposed the stay and sought security for costs of the appeal.

The court dismissed the father's motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored Julia's return to her habitual residence in the UAE.

The court also dismissed the mother's motion for security for costs, despite finding the appeal lacked merit, due to the serious nature of the issues involving the child's best interests.

In this family law appeal, the father sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal from a trial judgment concerning custody, access, equalization, and child support.

The mother sought security for costs for both the appeal and unsecured trial costs.

The court granted the father's motion for an extension of time and dismissed the mother's motion for security for costs, finding that neither criterion under Rule 61.06(1)(a) was satisfied.

The father was awarded costs of $1,000 for the extension motion and $2,000 for the security for costs motion.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the Children's Law Reform Act seeking a declaration that his daughter was habitually resident in Israel and was wrongfully retained in Canada by the respondent.

The application judge found that the parties had mutually agreed to change their habitual residence from Israel to Ontario while visiting Toronto, and that the appellant had subsequently consented to or acquiesced in Ontario as the daughter's habitual residence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings as factual determinations entitled to considerable deference, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

A solicitor appealed a motion judge's order regarding the assessment of legal accounts rendered to a client.

The solicitor challenged the characterization of 37 of 38 accounts as interim accounts falling within the limitation period for assessment, and sought production of the client's communications with another lawyer and tax documents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, finding no error in characterizing the accounts as interim based on the retainer agreement, account markings, and transmittal letters.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision to refuse production of the requested documents as irrelevant to the assessment issues.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought a stay of support enforcement, a refraining order against the suspension of his driver's licence, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings and a finding of contempt for his ongoing failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court dismissed the respondent's motions for a stay and exclusive possession, finding he lacked clean hands and failed to establish a prima facie case for variation.

A refraining order was granted on the condition that the respondent pay current support and $1,000 monthly towards arrears.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings to allow him to participate at trial, but found him in civil contempt for wilful non-disclosure, granting him a final opportunity to purge the contempt before sentencing.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' one-year-old son from Ontario to California.

The respondent mother argued that the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that returning him would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to alleged abuse.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was California, as it was the only place where both parents lived together with the child, and the father had not consented to a change in residence.

The court also dismissed the mother's Article 13(b) defence, finding insufficient evidence that a return would create an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the child was ordered returned to California, where custody and access issues would be determined.

The father appealed an order requiring him to return his child to Denmark pursuant to the Hague Convention.

The father argued that a parenting plan signed by the mother before they moved to Denmark established that the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the parenting plan was unenforceable and signed under duress, and that the child's habitual residence was Denmark at the time of the wrongful removal.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage.

The trial judge granted the respondent a 50 per cent beneficial interest in the matrimonial home on a resulting trust and dismissed the appellant's claims for unequal division of net family property and retroactive support.

The appellant appealed, seeking an interest in the respondent's RRSP and retroactive support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had not pleaded the RRSP trust claim at trial and that the trial judge made no errors in denying retroactive support based on the parties' conduct and circumstances.

The applicant father sought the return of his daughter, Naomi Rachelle Unger, to Tiveria, Israel, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The family had travelled from Israel to Toronto for a vacation, after which the mother and child remained in Toronto.

The father argued that Israel remained the child's habitual residence and that the mother was wrongfully retaining her.

The mother contended that the parties had mutually agreed to change the child's habitual residence to Ontario, or alternatively, that the father had consented or acquiesced to her remaining in Ontario with the child.

The court found that the parties had a shared, settled intention to reside indefinitely in Ontario, thereby changing the child's habitual residence from Israel to Ontario.

Consequently, the Hague Convention did not apply.

Even if Israel were deemed the habitual residence, the court found that the father had unequivocally consented and/or acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The application for the child's return was dismissed.