Lisa Kadoory

The appellant sought to overturn a trial decision regarding pension division, arguing the trial judge misinterpreted a separation agreement by awarding a current pension value instead of a fixed amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's interpretation reasonable and consistent with the parties' objective intention for a pro-rata share of the pension's actual present value, and rejected the appellant's attempt to introduce fresh evidence as an abuse of process.

The respondent mother brought a motion to compel the parties' 14-year-old children to attend in-person schooling.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking an order that the children be permitted to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and that the mother provide their health cards.

The court found that in-person schooling and vaccination were in the children's best interests.

Applying the Health Care Consent Act and the mature minor doctrine, the court held that the children were capable of consenting to the vaccine without parental consent.

The court ordered the mother to provide the health cards and directed that the children attend in-person learning following their first vaccine.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for an equal shared parenting schedule and an order restricting the child's residence to within 20 km of the matrimonial home, after the respondent mother unilaterally moved with the child to Toronto.

The court found the father's evidence more credible, noting that the mother had misled her own witnesses regarding her support for shared parenting.

Applying the newly amended Divorce Act provisions on best interests and relocation, the court held that the mother's unilateral self-help measures were inappropriate and that an equal shared parenting arrangement was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a 2-2-3 rotating schedule and required the mother to relocate the child's residence to within 35 km of the matrimonial home.

Mehrasa Tamaddonfar, a respondent in the main application, brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking the release of 50 percent of the proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial home.

The applicant, Seyedeh Shabnam Banihashemi, claimed 100 percent beneficial ownership through resulting trust or unjust enrichment, despite Ms. Tamaddonfar being a legal co-owner who contributed to the down payment and co-signed the mortgage.

The court dismissed Ms. Banihashemi's claims, finding that Ms. Tamaddonfar gave value for her interest, thus precluding a resulting trust, and that there was no unjust enrichment as Ms. Banihashemi benefited from acquiring the property and living there.

The motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and 50% of the proceeds were ordered released to Ms. Tamaddonfar.

The respondent brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the applicant to comply with previous court orders and return their youngest son, Calvin, to her residence, with police enforcement if necessary.

The applicant opposed and filed a cross-motion to vary parenting time, which was deemed non-urgent.

The court granted the respondent's motion, finding the applicant's reasons for retaining the child unsubstantiated and noting a history of high conflict and unproven allegations of abuse.

The court ordered Calvin's immediate return and authorized police assistance for enforcement.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's divorce application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario for the preceding year.

Alternatively, if jurisdiction was found, the respondent sought to amend her answer to include claims for setting aside a marriage contract, spousal support, and equalization, and argued for *forum non conveniens*.

The court found that the applicant was ordinarily resident in Ontario, establishing jurisdiction for the divorce.

However, applying the *forum non conveniens* factors, particularly the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings, the court determined that Florida was the clearly more appropriate forum, as the parties and their child resided there and related child-related issues were already being litigated in Florida.

The respondent's motion to dismiss the divorce application was granted.

The court issued a second supplementary judgment addressing the applicant's request for a spousal rollover of an RRSP and the question of costs.

The court dismissed the spousal rollover request, finding it had been substantially complied with through payments into a joint account for shared expenses.

On costs, the respondent was deemed to have prevailed overall, having beaten his offers to settle.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs throughout and substantial indemnity costs from the date of his offer, with adjustments for the applicant's successful defense of a misconceived breach of fiduciary duty claim and shared costs for an expert income report.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis due to the Respondent's unreasonable or bad faith conduct in financial disclosure during a family law proceeding that had settled by consent order.

The Respondent argued for parties to bear their own costs or for him to receive partial indemnity.

The court found the Respondent's conduct regarding disclosure to be unreasonable, though not in bad faith, as he was inattentive to his duty to make full and fair disclosure.

This unreasonable conduct was deemed to trump any success the Respondent might have had in the underlying litigation.

The court also addressed the retrospective application of changes to the Family Law Rules concerning costs and the principles governing "costs thrown away." The Applicant was awarded costs on a substantial recovery basis.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a final order requiring the respondent father to provide annual income disclosure and automatically adjust child support.

The father argued this was effectively a motion to change the final order and should be heard alongside his own motion to change based on material changes in circumstances.

The court held that seeking compliance with an automatic adjustment clause is a matter of enforcement under Rule 1(8), not a motion to change under Rule 15.

The court ordered that the mother's enforcement motion be heard before the father's motion to change, as delaying enforcement would undermine the integrity of the existing order.

The parties separated after a 25-year traditional marriage.

The respondent mother sought interim spousal and child support for their child with cerebral palsy.

The applicant father, a self-employed business owner, failed to provide complete financial disclosure.

Relying on the respondent's expert business valuator, the court imputed an income of $488,000 to the father, grossing up undeclared management fees and discretionary expenses.

The court imputed an income of $40,000 to the mother based on her earning capacity.

The father was ordered to pay $3,764 monthly in child support, $11,374 monthly in spousal support, and 92% of section 7 expenses.

The parties separated after a 10.5-year relationship.

The respondent, a high-earning cardiac surgeon, continued to deposit his income into a joint account managed by the applicant for seven years post-separation.

In 2008, the parties signed a separation agreement providing the applicant with $29,000 per month in indefinite spousal support.

The respondent sought to set aside the agreement and claim damages for breach of fiduciary duty regarding the applicant's use of the joint funds.

The court dismissed the fiduciary duty claim, finding no such duty existed between the spouses in these circumstances.

While the court upheld the separation agreement as valid under the Family Law Act, it applied the Miglin framework to override the spousal support provisions under the Divorce Act.

The court found the support quantum was based on significant tax defalcation and far exceeded the applicant's entitlement.

Spousal support was terminated after a short transition period.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage.

The applicant owned the matrimonial home prior to marriage.

The respondent claimed a constructive or resulting trust interest in the home due to its significant post-separation increase in value.

The court found that while there was a joint family venture resulting in unjust enrichment, a monetary award through the statutory equalization process was sufficient to remedy it.

The respondent's trust and occupation rent claims were dismissed.

The court also determined the value of a mortgage held by the applicant's father and calculated retroactive child support.

The applicant was ordered to pay a net equalization payment of $199,281.32.

Costs decision following motions in a family law parenting dispute involving whether a Section 30 assessment should be ordered.

The court held that the issue of obtaining a Section 30 assessment dominated the litigation and that the respondent on the motion was the successful party.

Although the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24 of the Family Court Rules, the court reduced the amount to reflect divided success on some parenting issues, inadmissible affidavit evidence, and abandoned claims.

The court fixed costs on a reduced partial indemnity basis.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary custody and access order, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The parties had a high-conflict separation, with the father alleging the mother was abusive and the mother alleging the father was alienating the children.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) became involved and recommended a section 30 assessment.

The court applied the criteria from Glick v. Cale and found that an assessment was warranted given the toxic family dynamic and the children's stress.

The court ordered the assessment and varied the temporary order to suspend overnight access for the two older children with the mother, pending the assessment's completion.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to vary custody of the parties' daughter from the applicant to himself.

The proceedings were stalled by disputes over financial disclosure, particularly regarding the respondent's income as a self-employed real estate agent and his financial arrangement with his fiancée.

The court addressed multiple disclosure orders, finding technical compliance with procedural rules but noting the respondent's overall dilatoriness.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, stayed the respondent's custody motion pending completion of financial disclosure, and set conditions for any access requests.

The matter was adjourned for further case conference.

The appellant father appealed a final order requiring him to pay prospective and retroactive child support, arguing the motions judge erred in finding his income, providing inadequate reasons, and misapplying the tests for retroactive support and undue hardship.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the income determination and held the reasons were adequate.

While the motions judge conflated the 'undue hardship' test for prospective support with the 'hardship' factor for retroactive support, the Divisional Court applied the correct test and upheld the retroactive award due to the father's long history of underpayment and failure to disclose income.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage and sought orders regarding custody, parenting schedules, and property equalization.

The father sought joint custody and an equal week-about schedule, while the mother sought sole custody and primary residence.

The court found the parties unable to co-parent effectively and ordered a parallel parenting regime where the mother has final decision-making authority over health and education, and the father over religion.

A parenting schedule was ordered providing significant time with both parents, though not exactly equal.

For property equalization, funds advanced by the father's parents were deemed gifts or discounted to zero due to the unlikelihood of repayment.

The father was granted 45 days to purchase the mother's interest in the matrimonial home.

The moving party brought a motion to change a separation agreement, seeking to reduce his child support obligations.

He argued that his business failed and he never earned the $35,000 imputed income agreed upon in 2006.

The court found no material change in circumstances, noting the moving party persisted with an unprofitable business for six years despite having an engineering degree and an MBA.

The court concluded the moving party was intentionally underemployed and dismissed the motion to change, maintaining the imputed income of $35,000.