Lindsay Konkol

The Respondent father sought unsupervised and increased parenting time, including overnights, and equal parenting time after Labour Day.

The Applicant mother opposed this, requesting the continuation of supervised parenting time and bringing a cross-motion for primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test, granted the father unsupervised daytime parenting time and supervised overnight parenting time, acknowledging his efforts to address past issues while noting serious concerns regarding his criminal history and lack of accountability.

The Applicant's cross-motion for sole decision-making and primary residence was dismissed as premature.

The applicant mother sought supervised parenting time for the respondent father, preservation of cottage sale proceeds, and temporary child and spousal support.

The respondent father cross-moved for unsupervised parenting time.

The court denied the applicant's request for supervised parenting, granting the respondent unsupervised parenting time with a specific schedule.

Issues regarding the cottage property were adjourned to a later date to allow the added respondent (the father's sister, legal owner of the cottage) to make submissions.

Temporary financial orders were made to maintain the status quo, requiring the respondent to pay certain household and vehicle expenses, and an uncharacterized amount of $6,000 per month to the applicant, pending full financial disclosure and a future case conference.

The respondent was also ordered to enroll in the Caring Dads program.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act and Family Law Act due to significant mortgage and property tax arrears, and a civil action initiated by the bank.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it was premature and would prejudice her family law claims, including spousal support and equalization.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding the sale inevitable given the financial circumstances and the bank's actions, and that delaying it would cause further hardship.

The court also set terms for the sale process.

Following a motion for temporary child and spousal support where success was divided, both parties sought costs.

The applicant husband had successfully established a prima facie entitlement to spousal support and obtained a temporary support order, despite the respondent wife's position that no support should be ordered.

The court found the husband was the successful party on the most important issues.

After considering the parties' behaviour, offers to settle, and the proportionality of the fees, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $33,000 to the applicant.

The applicant husband brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent wife, a law firm partner, brought a cross-motion seeking a regime where she paid no support but covered all housing and child expenses.

The court imputed the wife's income at $1,076,652 based on her firm's projections, despite Covid-19 uncertainties.

Applying section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court modified the strict set-off amount to account for the wife's significantly higher housing costs.

The court also found the husband established a prima facie needs-based entitlement to temporary spousal support to maintain the family's accustomed lifestyle.

The wife was ordered to pay $6,714.50 monthly in child support and $5,567 monthly in spousal support.

The parties, married for 16 years with four children, sought interim orders regarding a section 30 assessment, a Voice of the Child Report, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The Respondent sought a section 30 assessment, which the Applicant opposed, suggesting a Voice of the Child Report instead.

The court dismissed the Respondent's request for a section 30 assessment due to insufficient evidence, cost, and delay concerns, particularly given the children's ages and existing professional involvement.

A Voice of the Child Report was ordered for the three youngest children (ages 8, 12, 14) to ascertain their views and preferences, with costs shared equally.

Interim child support was set at $13,945.00 per month, and interim spousal support at $4,910.00 per month, with the Applicant paying 100% of specified section 7 expenses.

The court emphasized the importance of including section 7 expenses and associated tax implications in SSAG calculations.

The retroactive support claim was deferred to trial, and procedural directions were given to expedite the case to trial.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that granted partial summary judgment in favour of the respondent on the issue of non-disclosure of the appellant Neil's interest in a family trust established by his father Solomon.

The motion judge found that Neil had deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust to Randi when they entered into a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the trust indenture had been disclosed to Randi's counsel and financial advisors, and that Randi was deemed to have knowledge of Neil's interest through her counsel.

The court held that Neil's omission from his financial statements could not transform actual disclosure into non-disclosure under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court also found that even if there had been non-disclosure, the asset was not significant as it constituted excluded property under the Family Law Act.

The claims for conspiracy to commit fraud, deceit, and punitive damages against Solomon were also dismissed as they could not be sustained on the evidence.

The respondent brought a motion to quash an appeal on the ground that the order under appeal was interlocutory and not final, placing it outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The order arose from ongoing family law proceedings and required the appellant to make monthly spousal and child support payments, with a provision allowing the respondent to strike the appellant's pleadings on financial issues if payments were not made.

The appellant argued he could not pay and that the consequence clause created a "catch 22" preventing his participation in ongoing proceedings.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory and quashed the appeal, finding the jurisdictional issue was plain and obvious.

A child protection application brought by a child welfare society seeking temporary care and custody of two children (ages 12 and 9) from their parents.

The father opposed the motion and sought custody with society supervision, while the mother supported the society's position.

The court found that both children had suffered significant emotional harm due to high-conflict parenting, with evidence of parental alienation, emotional abuse, and the father's controlling behavior toward the children and mother.

The court determined that the children could not be adequately protected in either parent's care and ordered temporary placement with the society, with access discretionary to the society.

A payment order was imposed on both parents proportionate to their incomes.