Lawrence Liquornik

The mother brought a motion for security for costs regarding the father's contempt motion and motion to change, and sought to stay the motion to change pending the father's appeal of the final order.

The father, who resides outside Ontario and has an outstanding costs award against him, brought cross-motions seeking sanctions and a written apology from the mother.

The court stayed the father's motion to change pending the appeal, finding it inconsistent with the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to proceed while the appeal is outstanding.

The court ordered the father to post security for costs of $7,500 for the contempt motion and $20,000 for the motion to change, noting his non-resident status and the outstanding costs award.

The father's cross-motions were dismissed.

The mother brought a motion for security for costs regarding the father's appeal of a final family law order and costs order.

The father, who resides in the United States, had no assets in Ontario and the court found good reason to believe his appeal lacked merit.

Applying the two-stage analysis under Rule 61.06(1), the court balanced the father's expenses in exercising parenting time against the mother's need for protection from costs.

The court ordered the father to post $15,000 as security for costs of the appeal.

Brenda Boutrous pleaded guilty to Dangerous Operation Causing Death after a collision where she was speeding at 151 km/hr, striking another vehicle and causing the death of Dennis Malone.

The court considered the victim's U-turn as a factual contributor but found Boutrous's excessive speed to be the significant cause.

The sentencing decision balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, considering Boutrous's youth, guilty plea, lack of prior record, and profound remorse.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by probation and a driving prohibition.

The appellant in a zoning and severance appeal to the Toronto Local Appeal Body died shortly before the scheduled hearing.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant's counsel requested that the matter be held in abeyance to allow the estate to determine whether to withdraw the appeal.

The tribunal granted the request, ordering the appellant's counsel to communicate the estate's decision by June 15, 2023, failing which the tribunal noted its statutory authority to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The Applicant Father (AF) brought a motion to enforce an alleged agreement reached through counsel to temporarily vary a child support order to $500 per month, retroactive to March 1, 2020.

The Respondent Mother (RM) opposed, arguing no agreement was reached and seeking to impute income to the AF.

The court applied the three-part test for settlement enforcement, finding a valid temporary "without prejudice" agreement was indeed reached.

The AF's motion to enforce the agreement was granted.

The court then addressed costs, significantly reducing the amount payable by the RM due to her circumstances, the children's best interests, and the death of her previous counsel.

The moving party brought a motion for the immediate listing and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and an equal disbursement of the net proceeds.

The responding party agreed to the sale but sought to delay the listing and requested that 50% of the net proceeds be held in trust to secure potential property and support claims, as well as future assessment costs.

The court ordered the immediate listing and sale of the home, finding no valid reason for delay.

The court rejected the request to hold 50% of the proceeds in trust, but ordered $50,000 from each party's share to be held in trust to secure the moving party's share of capital expenses and potential assessment and education costs.

The respondent brought a motion for an order releasing funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant opposed, suspecting an undisclosed side arrangement between the respondent and the buyer that would affect equalization.

The court dismissed the applicant's opposition, finding no prima facie evidence to support her suspicions or a real risk that her equalization claim would be defeated.

The court ordered the funds distributed equally to the parties, emphasizing that mere suspicion without concrete evidence of asset dissipation or a strong likelihood of a significant equalization payment is insufficient for a preservation order.

The father brought an urgent motion to restrain the mother from relocating with their eight-year-old child from Toronto to Kemptville.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the relocation so the child could attend a specialized reading intervention program.

The court found that the child had significant reading challenges and that the mother's proposed educational plan constituted compelling circumstances to allow the move on an interim basis.

The father's motion was dismissed, and the mother's cross-motion was granted, permitting the relocation for the 2020-2021 school year pending a final determination at trial.

The father was awarded extended parenting time to compensate for the geographical distance.

The respondent, who was previously prohibited from bringing motions without prior judicial approval, brought a motion for leave to proceed with a motion seeking 17 substantive heads of relief.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, noting that the supporting affidavit was excessively long, argumentative, and replete with unsupported allegations of fraud against lawyers and judicial officials.

The court warned the respondent that further non-compliance could result in her being declared a vexatious litigant and restricted future affidavits for leave motions to five pages.

The respondent mother moved to set aside a temporary order for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and support, relying on Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

She alleged that the applicant father had committed fraud by failing to fully disclose his income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the father knowingly or recklessly made false statements with wrongful intent, noting that temporary orders are based on evolving evidence and a different finding on a fuller record does not constitute fraud.

Following a trial, the respondent mother brought motions under Rule 25(19) to void or change the judgment, alleging the applicant father failed to satisfy disclosure obligations, the judgment contained errors regarding bank balances, and she should be the sole irrevocable beneficiary of his life insurance policy.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that Rule 25(19) does not permit re-litigation or correction of alleged errors in law or fact, which are matters for appeal.

The court also found no evidence of fraud and upheld the father's life insurance beneficiary designations.

The Applicant, Chris Ouslis, sought full indemnity costs following a five-week trial where the outcome on property issues was significantly more favourable to him than his settlement offer.

The Respondent, Marcia Lebou Ouslis, disputed the proper service of offers, counsel rates, and the applicability of costs rules.

The court found the applicant's property offer was properly served and that he was more successful on property issues.

Applying the Family Law Rules, particularly Rule 18(14) and Rule 24, the court considered the purposes of costs, the parties' conduct, the complexity of issues, and the reasonableness of counsel rates.

While acknowledging the applicant's success, the court adjusted counsel rates downward and awarded a fair, reasonable, and proportionate amount of costs, totaling $206,547.73, to be paid by the respondent from her share of matrimonial home proceeds.

The parties separated after a 22-year marriage.

The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the applicant recklessly depleted family assets by investing heavily in a hedge fund that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme.

The court found the investments were made in good faith on professional advice and did not meet the threshold of unconscionability for an unequal division.

The court calculated the equalization payment owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The court also imputed income to both parties due to intentional underemployment and ordered the applicant to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The wife renewed a motion to strike the husband's pleadings for financial non-disclosure, specifically regarding the valuation of his business interests.

The court reviewed the husband's compliance with previous disclosure orders and found his explanation for non-compliance unsatisfactory, particularly his failure to value his business interests.

While the motion to strike was dismissed, the court ordered the husband to retain a Chartered Business Valuator within 30 days and ensure a report is delivered within five months.

The court also noted the husband's financial ability to meet these obligations and declined to award him costs.

The applicant wife moved to strike the respondent husband's pleadings for failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The husband brought a cross-motion for leave to file his Answer late, claiming a cognitive disability caused his delay, though he provided no credible medical evidence.

The court found the husband had made significant but incomplete disclosure.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the caution against striking pleadings in family law cases involving continuing obligations, the court granted the husband's motion for leave to file his Answer on strict terms and adjourned the wife's motion to strike.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to impute income to the respondent for child support purposes.

The respondent had failed to comply with court-ordered financial disclosure obligations for over nineteen months despite multiple court orders and extensions.

The court found that the respondent's persistent non-compliance with disclosure orders, combined with evidence of an affluent lifestyle, unexplained income deposits, and contradictory statements about his employment, justified drawing an adverse inference and imputing income at a conservative level.

The court granted summary judgment and ordered the respondent to pay child support based on imputed income, retroactive to the date of service of the application.