Larry A. Silverberg

The applicant sought summary judgment declaring his business properties were not "community property" under Ontario law and an order to remove a lis pendens registered by the respondent in Arizona.

He also sought to strike the respondent's equitable claims for pleading deficiencies.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for a preservation order over the Arizona assets.

The court declared that Ontario is not a community property jurisdiction, dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding equitable claims but granted leave for the respondent to amend her pleadings, ordered the respondent to remove the lis pendens, and ordered the release of escrow funds to the applicant's business, finding no risk of asset depletion to warrant a preservation order.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

Trial decision regarding custody, access, and child support for a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder born to unmarried parents who never cohabited.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with regular access for the father and child support.

The respondent father sought joint custody and increased parenting time, arguing equal involvement in the child's care.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding that while the father maintained regular access and demonstrated love for the child, he had not undertaken the substantial parenting responsibilities required to address the child's special needs.

The court emphasized the poor communication between the parties and the lack of meaningful cooperation in managing the child's therapeutic requirements, which militated against a joint custody order.

The court awarded child support and detailed access provisions.

A costs endorsement following a focused trial on whether the respondent (mother) could travel to Russia with the parties' two-year-old child.

The mother was successful in obtaining permission to travel.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $4,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.

The court reduced the costs award due to the mother's unreasonable procedural conduct, including filing inadmissible hearsay evidence and refusing to produce witnesses for cross-examination without court order.

The court also noted that neither party served offers to settle, which was unreasonable behaviour.