Leonardo Mongillo

The Applicant wife, S.P., brought a motion to amend her Application to add four new respondents and to plead the tort of civil conspiracy, alleging that the Respondent husband, D.D., and the proposed new respondents conspired to conceal D.D.'s income and assets, causing S.P. over $6 million in damages.

The Respondent opposed the motion and sought a substantial costs award.

The court applied the Family Law Rules 11(3) and the "plain and obvious" test for new causes of action, finding that the amended pleading sufficiently pleaded material facts to support the conspiracy claim.

The court also noted D.D.'s lack of transparency in financial disclosure.

The motion to amend was granted.

S.P. was deprived of costs for the motion due to unreasonable delay in bringing it, which led to trial adjournments.

D.D.'s request for costs was declined, though he was permitted to make further submissions on costs of the motion.

Following a ruling on cross-motions where the applicant was ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs, the court received written submissions on quantum.

The respondent sought $22,326.46, while the applicant argued for no costs or $2,500.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable within 30 days.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child access.

The applicant mother sought to hold the respondent father in contempt and vary access to supervised access, while the respondent sought to expand access or remedy the applicant's denial of access.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, noting a Children's Aid Society letter stating the children were not in need of protection and wished to see the respondent.

The court found neither party proved a material change in circumstances to vary the existing access orders.

However, the court found the applicant had denied access without a lawful basis and ordered her to comply immediately, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.

In the context of a motion to change spousal support, both parties brought cross-motions seeking to compel the other to provide answers to outstanding undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The respondent claimed a catastrophic change in financial circumstances, including bankruptcy and the sale of his business, while alleging the applicant had undisclosed wealth.

The court reviewed the extensive lists of requested financial and corporate documents, applying the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Family Law Rules.

The court granted divided success, ordering both parties to produce certain relevant documents while dismissing requests that were overly broad, irrelevant, or already sufficiently answered.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision enforcing a settlement agreement between the parties.

The respondent had lent $6,000,000 to the appellant via a vendor take-back mortgage that matured on May 7, 2016.

Upon default, the respondent offered a settlement for $6,162,950.45, which included principal, interest, three months' interest compensation, receivership costs, and legal fees.

The appellant paid the full amount and received a discharge of the mortgage.

Three days later, the appellant disputed the amount charged and sought relief from certain costs.

The motion judge enforced the settlement, finding the terms were clear and the appellant had accepted them without condition or protest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the enforceability of the settlement agreement and rejecting arguments regarding unconscionability and violations of the Interest Act.

The Applicant mother and Respondent father brought motions for interim access to their 15-month-old child.

The mother sought temporary custody and limited access for the father, citing breastfeeding and separation anxiety.

The father sought increased parenting time, including an additional overnight.

The court rejected the mother's arguments regarding breastfeeding and anxiety, finding her not credible.

The court determined that increased parenting time with the father and his extended family was in the child's best interests, granting the father's requested schedule.

A s. 30 assessment was ordered, with costs to be shared equally.

The Applicant successfully moved for a stay of child support due to a change in the children's primary residence.

The court then addressed costs, where the Applicant sought full recovery costs alleging bad faith by the Respondent and costs against Respondent's counsel.

The court found the Respondent's conduct unreasonable but not in bad faith, distinguishing between the two.

It also declined to award costs against counsel, emphasizing the high threshold for such orders.

Ultimately, the court awarded the Applicant $17,000 in partial recovery costs, considering the Respondent's unreasonable conduct and an informal offer made by the Applicant.

The applicant sought to stay child support payments after the children (aged 14 and 15) moved to live primarily with him, departing from a shared custody arrangement.

The children also began attending a private school (St. Andrews College) paid for by the applicant.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant lacked "clean hands" and that ending support would cause her hardship.

The court treated the motion as an interim variation of child support, applying the five factors from Clark v. Vanderhoeven.

The court found a material change in circumstances, no clear evidence of the applicant's misconduct, and that continuing child support would cause hardship to the applicant and an incongruous result, potentially jeopardizing the children's attendance at St. Andrews College.

The court also found the matter urgent due to school registration deadlines.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The mother sought sole custody of their two children, while the father sought joint custody and shared parenting.

The court found that the parents' inability to communicate and cooperate ruled out joint custody or parallel parenting.

The mother was granted sole custody and final decision-making authority, as she had demonstrated a more child-focused approach to the children's medical and academic needs.

The father's access was expanded to include more meaningful time, and he was ordered to pay child support based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court issued a ruling on costs and other issues following a judgment on child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The Applicant was found to be more successful overall.

The court corrected an inadvertent error in the spousal support calculation based on an outdated program, adjusting the monthly payment.

It declined to revisit the date of marriage value of the Respondent's Book of Business as it was not disputed at trial.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the Applicant, secured the equalization payment against the matrimonial home, and ordered pre and post-judgment interest.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The key issue was determining the respondent's income, as he had recently lost his high-paying job and was managing significant debt.

The applicant sought to impute the respondent's 2014 income of $377,763, while the respondent argued his 2015 income was $229,721.

The court declined to impute the higher income, finding the job loss was involuntary.

Due to the unusual circumstances of job loss and significant debt, the court departed from the guidelines and applied a needs-based approach, ordering the respondent to pay $1,500 in child support and $4,500 in spousal support monthly, plus child care expenses.

On an interim family law motion, the applicant sought temporary spousal support, an order dispensing with the respondent’s consent to sell the matrimonial home, and payment of home maintenance expenses pending sale.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances under the Divorce Act and determined that interim support should be set using the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, imputing income to the respondent and none to the applicant.

The court also found the respondent had not established a reasonable need to delay sale of the matrimonial home and authorized its repair and listing for sale without the respondent’s consent if necessary.

Orders were made for interim spousal support, the repair and sale of the property, ongoing property expenses, and further financial disclosure.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing spousal support, an order imputing income to the respondent, life insurance beneficiary designation, medical and dental coverage, and related relief following a long-term marriage and separation nine years earlier.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the applicant had failed to provide full financial disclosure and that entitlement to support and equalization issues were unresolved.

The court applied the principles governing imputation of income under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the test from Drygala v. Pauli.

It found insufficient evidence that the respondent was intentionally unemployed and declined to impute income.

Given extensive conflicting evidence regarding post‑separation trusts, assets, and disclosure, the court held that entitlement to spousal support and equalization issues should be determined at trial rather than on a motion.