Lauri-Ann Daitchman

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to strike the respondent mother's pleadings due to her persistent failure to comply with numerous court orders.

The court found that the respondent had willfully disobeyed orders regarding the return of property, provision of passwords, facilitation of communication with the children, cooperation with a section 30 assessment, school enrollment, sale of a rental property, and payment of costs.

Finding this to be an exceptional circumstance where the respondent adopted a 'scorched earth' approach, the court struck her Answer, except for her claims regarding parenting time, and ordered an uncontested trial for the remaining issues.

The respondent mother brought a motion for leave to re-litigate the children's school enrollment, despite a previous order barring her from bringing further motions until she complied with existing orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding she remained in breach of numerous orders and was attempting to re-litigate a decided issue.

To ensure compliance with the prior order regarding school enrollment, the court granted the applicant father temporary sole decision-making responsibility for education and ordered costs against the respondent.

In a high-conflict family law dispute, the self-represented moving party sought to challenge several temporary orders made by various judges.

During a case management conference, the court scheduled motions for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal two of the orders (relating to children's schooling and the sale of a rental property).

The court refused to schedule an extension motion for a third order excluding the moving party from a jointly-owned business, noting the request was vexatious as an earlier motion for leave had been abandoned.

The applicant father brought a motion for an interim order for equal summer parenting time.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing it was a backdoor attempt to vary the existing 5/14 year-round schedule and that the children would be at risk of harm.

The court found that the status quo for summer parenting time was established by the equal sharing arrangement from the previous summer.

The court reviewed the children's best interests, noting the mother's unsubstantiated allegations and lack of cooperation with assessments.

The court granted the father's motion for equal summer parenting time.

The applicant father brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned rental property.

The respondent mother agreed to the sale but insisted it be sold privately to her mother, without a formal offer or specific price, arguing it would save real estate commission.

The court found no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant in seeking an open market sale.

Conversely, the respondent's demand to sell only to her mother was deemed oppressive.

The court also addressed the respondent's failure to attend the motion, affirming its duty to proceed justly.

The motion was granted, and the court ordered the rental property to be listed for sale on the open market with specific terms for realtor selection and cooperation.

Following a motion regarding interim support and control of a business, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought $26,072.49 based on unaccepted offers to settle, while the respondent argued for costs to be deferred to trial, claiming mixed success.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and declined to defer costs.

The court awarded the applicant $17,000 in costs on an elevated partial indemnity scale of 66%, reflecting condemnation of the respondent's failure to adhere to previous court orders.

The parties brought competing motions in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The applicant sought control of the family business, AKA Creative Inc., and the return of his belongings, arguing the respondent breached a prior ex-parte order.

The respondent sought interim child support, spousal support, and proportionate sharing of special expenses based on an imputed income of $300,000 for the applicant.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the respondent had not respected the prior order and that the applicant, as majority shareholder, should manage the business.

The court partially granted the respondent's motion, imputing an income of $50,000 to the applicant and $18,720 to the respondent, and ordered go-forward child support and proportionate sharing of private school expenses.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support following the breakdown of a 14-year relationship.

The respondent argued the applicant was intentionally under-employed and disputed entitlement.

The court found the applicant had a good arguable case for entitlement on non-compensatory grounds, noting her age, health issues, and limited employment prospects.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $1,809 per month based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The parties were unable to agree on how to list the former matrimonial home for sale and divide the proceeds pursuant to a Final Order.

The applicant argued the respondent breached the order by delaying the listing, causing him to incur additional carrying costs.

The court noted the delay was partly due to the pandemic and the applicant's appeals.

The parties agreed to a compromise on the carrying costs, and the court issued detailed directions for the listing, sale, and disbursement of the proceeds.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim retroactive and continuing child support, as well as retroactive spousal support.

The respondent father argued that past overpayments should be credited and that retroactive claims should be deferred to trial due to factual disputes regarding income and joint funds.

The court ordered prospective child support and limited retroactive child support to August 2020, when the respondent's alleged overpayments would have been exhausted.

The issue of retroactive spousal support was reserved to trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following a motion.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $4,172.28, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary shared parenting and overnight access to the parties' three children.

The respondent mother opposed the relief, citing concerns about the father's history of substance abuse and seeking to maintain the status quo where the children primarily resided with her.

The court declined to order temporary shared custody due to conflicting affidavit evidence, ordering that the children continue to primarily reside with the mother pending a section 30 assessment.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and ordered the father to undergo bi-weekly urine testing and a hair follicle test as a precondition to commencing overnight parenting time.

The self-represented applicant moved to set aside a previous decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his family law appeal, seeking a new hearing under Rules 37.14 and 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that Rule 37.14 had no application and that the authority to reconsider a decision under Rule 59.06 is exercised sparingly.

The applicant's arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the correctness of the appeal decision.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the proper route to contest the decision was to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The appellant appealed a Family Court decision resolving numerous issues arising from his separation from the respondent, a common law partner.

The appeal involved three main categories of claims: financial rulings (spousal support, child support, unjust enrichment), property-related claims (the Shirrick property and Magdalan property), and a claim for wrongfully withdrawn funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on all grounds, finding no legal errors or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court confirmed the trial judge's determination that the Shirrick property was jointly owned at separation and that the appellant was not entitled to an increased share based on greater financial contributions.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the Magdalan property claim, finding no causal connection between the respondent's refusal to participate in the purchase and the appellant's losses.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.