Harold Niman

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage.

Before the marriage, the respondent wife received shares in her father's business.

During the marriage, an estate freeze was executed, transferring the growth value of the shares to a new family trust settled by her father for $100.

The trial judge, feeling bound by prior appellate jurisprudence, excluded the wife's interest in the trust from her net family property as a gift after marriage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, distinguishing the prior case and holding that the trust interest was traceable to the pre-marital gift.

The trust interest was included in net family property, but the equalization payment was reduced to $18 million under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act due to unconscionability.

Retroactive spousal support was ordered, but prospective support was denied.

The trial costs award against the appellant husband was upheld.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application to set aside a separation agreement on the basis of duress under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the appellant's vulnerabilities were compensated by independent legal advice.

On the respondent's cross-appeal regarding costs, the Court found the application judge erred in principle by using a 'cost equalization' methodology rather than applying the proper purposes of a costs award.

The cross-appeal was allowed, and the respondent was awarded $80,000 in costs for the proceeding below, plus $12,500 for the appeal.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 15-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed an exceptionally high standard of living, with family wealth including a $200 million business fund and multiple luxury properties.

The applicant argued the motion was premature due to an impending $90 million equalization payment and contested the respondent's proposed budget as inflated.

The court found the motion was not premature and the respondent was entitled to support.

Given the applicant's income far exceeded the $350,000 ceiling, the court departed from a strict application of the guidelines, awarding $200,000 per month in interim spousal support and $75,000 per month in interim child support, plus $27,000 monthly for nannies.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

The applicant husband and respondent wife built a real estate corporate empire during their marriage.

Following their separation, the wife claimed her mother beneficially owned the subject corporations and relied on a 2007 marriage contract to exclude the assets from net family property.

The court found the husband was the beneficial owner of four of the corporations and a 50% owner of the fifth, determining the mother was merely a nominee.

The court also set aside the marriage contract, finding the parties had abandoned it by mutual agreement in 2008.

The wife's post-separation actions to seize control of the corporations were found to be oppressive under the Business Corporations Act.

The parties separated after 16 years of marriage.

The father was criminally charged and subsequently breached a temporary court order requiring him to maintain the family's financial status quo.

On the mother's motion for financial relief, the court found the father in breach of the prior order and directed the sale of the matrimonial home.

To remedy the breach and provide support, the court ordered the father to pay $357,180 in lump sum retroactive child and spousal support, $30,000 in costs for an abandoned parenting motion, and $150,000 in interim disbursements, all to be paid from his share of the home's net sale proceeds.

The applicant was previously successful in an application to cancel a matrimonial home designation registered by the respondent, which had interfered with her mortgage renewal.

The parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that the applicant made a reasonable offer to settle and obtained an order as favourable as her offer, triggering the costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that costs should await the outcome of his application to set aside the separation agreement.

Costs were fixed at $18,500 plus disbursements, payable forthwith.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen the evidentiary portion of the trial to admit two documents concerning loans made to relevant corporations.

The documents were in the parties' possession prior to and throughout the trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was a collateral attack on a prior order that permitted a pleading amendment but expressly prohibited further trial evidence.

The court also held that issue estoppel applied and that the marginal probative value of the documents was outweighed by the prejudice of further delay and expense.

The appellant, a high-profile public figure, appealed a motion judge's dismissal of his request for a sealing order and publication ban in a family law proceeding.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider alternative protective measures such as anonymization and partial sealing.

The court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no evidence of harm to the child, noting the child's need for security guards and signs of distress.

A partial sealing order and publication ban were granted to protect the child's privacy.

This motion concerns parenting time for three young children (3-year-old twins and a 2-year-old) following the arrest and subsequent withdrawal of criminal charges against the mother.

The mother sought to vary a temporary parenting order that had limited her to seven hours of supervised parenting time per week.

The father opposed the variation, arguing the mother engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, including orchestrating an elaborate scheme involving impersonation and threats.

The court found insufficient evidence to conclude the mother was responsible for the scheme, but remained concerned about her pattern of fabricating stories about deceased or non-existent children told to multiple individuals.

The court increased the mother's parenting time to include overnight visits supervised by maternal grandparents, while maintaining supervision pending trial.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and reserved costs to the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a motion to quash an appeal in a family law matter concerning a motion for a sealing order and publication ban to protect a child’s privacy.

The court held that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, and thus any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The decision reviews the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, emphasizing that privacy and sealing orders are generally collateral to the main issues in family law proceedings and do not determine substantive rights.

The court also declined to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court.

This costs decision follows a complex family law trial between Barbara Lang-Newlands and Ian Newlands.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, settlement offers, and relative success on issues, ultimately awarding the applicant, Barbara, $2,800,000 in costs.

The decision details the application of the Family Law Rules regarding offers to settle, the reasonableness of the parties’ behaviour, and the principles guiding costs awards in family law litigation.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Barbara Lang-Newlands regarding the operation of the automatic stay under rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following a family law trial judgment.

The court addressed whether certain monetary awards (post-separation adjustments) should be characterized as support and thus exempt from the stay, and whether the stay should be lifted or maintained on various payments pending appeal.

The court declined to recharacterize the payments as support, but exercised its discretion to lift the stay on Ian Newlands' obligation to pay post-separation adjustments, given the risk that Barb would not recover the funds if the stay remained.

The court ordered Barb to pay Ian the net difference and expedited the appeal.

The decision addresses whether Joselene Yacoub’s lawyers, Harold Niman and Hayley Cairns, should be removed due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from Niman’s brief 2018 consultation with the respondent, Louis Serafini Jr., regarding his divorce from a former spouse.

The court finds that while a solicitor-client relationship existed, the matters were not sufficiently related and no relevant confidential information was imparted.

The motion to remove counsel is dismissed.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement on grounds of duress, alleging blackmail by the Respondent and his girlfriend.

The court conducted a bifurcated trial on this issue.

The court found that while the Applicant felt pressured and vulnerable, her vulnerabilities were compensated by her lawyer's professional assistance, and the alleged blackmail by the girlfriend occurred after the agreement was signed.

The application to set aside the agreement on grounds of duress was dismissed.

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage.

The applicant's father had established a highly successful business.

Before the marriage, the father settled a trust holding shares in the business for the applicant.

During the marriage, the applicant received the shares and later participated in an estate freeze, transferring the shares to a holding company in exchange for preferred shares, while a new trust (the NFT) acquired the common shares.

The applicant and her children were discretionary beneficiaries of the NFT.

The main issue was whether the applicant's interest in the NFT was property subject to equalization, and if so, whether it was excluded as a gift.

The court found the interest was property, but bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Shinder v. Shinder, held it was an excluded gift.

The court also determined the valuation of various assets, dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim to a cottage, and ordered the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $1.18M and needs-based spousal support of $25,649 per month.

The Applicant sought to continue a preservation order against the Respondent's property sale proceeds and for interim disbursements.

The Respondent sought to lift the preservation order.

The court continued the preservation order under section 40 of the Family Law Act, finding a risk of dissipation and potential irreparable harm to the Applicant's spousal support claim.

However, the Applicant's request for interim disbursements was dismissed, as she was not found to be impecunious and the requested expenses were deemed premature.

This is a costs endorsement following a partial summary judgment motion where the applicant sought to dismiss the respondent's spousal support claims, arguing the parties were not "spouses" under the Family Law Act.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding the cohabitation issue too complex for summary judgment.

The respondent, as the successful party, sought full indemnity costs of $89,561.88 or partial indemnity costs of $58,390.39.

The applicant sought to defer costs or fix them at $30,000.

The court, applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness under the Family Law Rules, found the applicant's conduct not unreasonable for bringing the motion but reduced the respondent's claimed costs by excluding time for case conferences and questioning that would be useful at trial.

The court awarded the respondent $50,000 in costs.

This is a costs endorsement arising from a jurisdiction motion and a Rule 25(19) motion.

The court had previously determined that Ontario had jurisdiction over spousal support claims but that property division claims were governed by Iranian law under s.15 of the Family Law Act.

The applicant, Ms. Namdar, was found to be the successful party on the underlying jurisdiction motion and sought substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent, Mr. Maali, argued for divided success and sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court found that Mr. Maali's offer to settle did not constitute a true compromise, thus not triggering Rule 18(14) cost consequences.

Considering the complexity and importance of the issues, and the reasonable conduct of both parties, the court awarded Ms. Namdar fixed costs and disbursements of $32,250, which included expert fees, finding her claimed fees of over $70,000 to be disproportionate.