Kulbir Rehal

The applicant husband brought motions to find the respondent wife in contempt for failing to provide timely disclosure, and for various other relief including the sale or winding up of their jointly owned companies and former matrimonial home, an advance on legal fees, and an extension of the limitation period to seek equalization.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the wife's delay was not wilful or deliberate.

The court declined to order the sale of the companies or the home given the existence of separation agreements that dealt with those assets, but granted preservation orders restraining the wife from encroaching on corporate funds or the home's equity.

The request for an advance on legal fees was dismissed, and the limitation period extension was adjourned to trial.

This case involved a motion to change a 2012 consent order concerning custody, access, child support, and international travel for a child with Cerebral Palsy.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the child's evolving needs, the primary caregiver's financial strain, and the parents' inability to co-parent effectively due to ongoing conflict.

The court granted sole custody to the primary caregiver, ordered supervised access for the other parent in Toronto, and permitted international travel to a non-Hague Convention country without a bond.

Retroactive and ongoing child support was ordered, and the other parent's counter-claims were dismissed.

Substantial costs were awarded against the non-compliant parent.

Rajeev Bhogal brought a motion for interim sole custody and child support for their eleven-year-old daughter, S, following the sale of the matrimonial home.

Prithy Jennifer Bhogal opposed, arguing the motion was premature given ongoing Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) involvement and due to contested affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed Rajeev's motion, finding it premature without OCL input and due to contested affidavit evidence.

Instead, the court ordered an interim shared parenting schedule as proposed by Prithy, pending OCL conclusions and a settlement conference.

The respondent father moved to set aside a default judgment obtained after an uncontested trial in a family law matter.

He claimed he did not understand court procedures, failed to respond promptly due to a learning disability, and had an arguable defense.

The court applied the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms v. McQueen, finding that the respondent did not bring the motion promptly, provided an implausible explanation for his default given his legal training and warnings, and failed to demonstrate an arguable defense on the merits of the original claims (separation date, matrimonial home value, equalization, custody, income, spousal support).

The motion was denied, and the applicant was awarded costs.

The mother unilaterally moved with the parties' two children from Toronto to Barrie without the father's consent or a court order.

The father brought a motion seeking the return of the children, joint custody, a 50/50 residential schedule, and unsupervised access.

The court declined to order the return of the children, finding that due to the passage of time, they had become well settled in Barrie and a return would be disruptive.

However, the court condemned the mother's self-help actions and ordered joint custody, with a 50/50 residential schedule to commence once the father relocates to Barrie.

The court also partially lifted the supervision requirement for the father's access and ordered the mother to pay $500 in costs due to her unreasonable conduct.