Daniel S. Melamed

The applicant brought a 14B motion seeking, among other things, abridgment of service time, validation of service, substituted service by email and courier to a respondent residing in the People’s Republic of China, and permission to bring further motions before a case conference.

The court considered the requirements of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters and relevant appellate authority emphasizing compliance with international service procedures.

Although evidence suggested the respondent had actual knowledge of the proceeding, the court held that where the Hague Convention applies, its service requirements must be respected.

The applicant failed to establish a basis for validating service or permitting substituted service inconsistent with the Convention.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to renewal with further evidence and a factum.

On competing family law motions following separation after an 18-year marriage, the court ordered bifurcation so that the validity of the parties’ marriage contract would be tried first.

Applying the bifurcation principles, the court held that the validity issue was discrete, could materially narrow the remaining trust, equalization, and support claims, and would likely reduce cost and delay.

The court also found a triable issue as to the enforceability of the marriage contract’s spousal support waiver, including concerns about timing, disclosure, duress, and unconscionability, and granted interim spousal support of $5,655 per month.

Further disclosure was restricted to what was necessary to determine the validity of the marriage contract, with broader valuation and income-analysis disclosure deferred.

On competing family law motions following separation after an 18-year marriage, the court ordered bifurcation so that the validity of the parties’ marriage contract would be tried first.

Applying the bifurcation principles, the court held that the validity issue was discrete, could materially narrow the remaining trust, equalization, and support claims, and would likely reduce cost and delay.

The court also found a triable issue as to the enforceability of the marriage contract’s spousal support waiver, including concerns about timing, disclosure, duress, and unconscionability, and granted interim spousal support of $5,655 per month.

Further disclosure was restricted to what was necessary to determine the validity of the marriage contract, with broader valuation and income-analysis disclosure deferred.

The parties entered into a separation agreement in 2005 to share the children's special expenses equally instead of following the Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant father defaulted in 2008 and sought to terminate his contractual obligations, claiming a material change in circumstances due to declining income and an inability to liquidate capital.

The application judge dismissed his request, finding the circumstances were foreseeable when the agreement was signed.

The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that foreseeability is central to the test for varying contractual child support obligations.

Following an unsuccessful jurisdictional motion brought by certain respondents seeking dismissal of part of a claim, the court addressed costs.

The motion was dismissed and another respondent was entirely successful.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs in favour of the successful party.

Costs were awarded inclusive of taxes and disbursements.