E. Llana Nakonechny

The accused, B.W., faced charges of sexual assault.

At trial, the defence moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing B.W. was a young person at the time of the alleged offences (1993-1994) and thus should be tried under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown contended the Superior Court had jurisdiction, citing uncertainty regarding B.W.'s age and provisions of the YCJA.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that B.W. was 18 or older at the time of the offences, quashing the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claims regarding an interest in a property, unjust enrichment, and a valid domestic contract.

The respondent failed to file any materials or evidence and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, dismissing the respondent's claims for resulting trust, unjust enrichment, and joint family venture due to lack of evidence.

The alleged cohabitation agreement was also found invalid as it did not meet the formal requirements of the Family Law Act.

The applicant sought urgent relief regarding access to their fifteen-month-old child, Samuel, including unsupervised access and a modified 2-2-3 schedule.

The respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent and brought a cross-motion for continued primary residence and the existing interim access schedule.

The court, applying the "urgency" test from the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession during the COVID-19 pandemic, found the initial access issue urgent but the request for an equal time-sharing schedule was not.

The court expanded the applicant's interim unsupervised access schedule, emphasizing the child's best interests and the parents' prior co-parenting involvement, while noting the Children's Aid Society found no ongoing violence.

The applicant's request for a 2/2/5 schedule was adjourned for a more fulsome record.

The applicant brought a motion seeking further production of documents from the respondent's real estate lawyer's file related to a mortgage refinancing, arguing that previous productions were incomplete despite two prior motions.

The respondent claimed all documents had been produced and asserted solicitor-client privilege.

The court, noting the high conflict and lack of trust between the parties, ordered the respondent to instruct the lawyer to provide the applicant's counsel with a complete and unredacted copy of the entire file by a specified date, with provisions for extension due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This case involved a married couple separating after 10 years, with two children.

The primary issues at trial were parenting time and decision-making, equalization of net family property, the treatment of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) for support and property calculations, child support, and spousal support.

The court granted joint custody, with the children primarily residing with the Respondent, and established a detailed four-week parenting schedule.

The Applicant was awarded an equalization payment and ongoing spousal support.

The court also clarified how RSUs should be treated for child versus spousal support calculations, distinguishing between income and property.

This motion concerned the production of documents from a former solicitor's file, where the applicant, T.O.E., sought disclosure of emails related to the respondent, I.S.'s, attempt to refinance a mortgage.

The respondent claimed solicitor-client privilege over certain communications, including those with her family law counsel.

The court found that the respondent had implicitly waived privilege by selectively disclosing some privileged documents ("cherry-picking") and by intending to call the solicitor as a witness on matters of substance related to the refinancing.

Consequently, the court ordered the production of the remaining undisclosed documents and awarded costs to the applicant.

The parties, married for 25 years and separated for 12, sought a final determination on spousal support.

The Applicant, a full-time homemaker during the marriage, sought indefinite spousal support and a lump sum for post-separation debts.

The Respondent, a civil engineer, argued for termination or reduction of support, citing the Applicant's lengthy cohabitation with a new partner of substantial wealth and his own significant contributions to child and home care during the marriage.

The court found the Applicant entitled to both need-based and compensatory spousal support, acknowledging her economic detriment and health issues.

However, the court also recognized the impact of her re-partnering on the quantum and duration of support.

The court adjusted the Respondent's income for support purposes, including personal expenses paid by his corporation, but declined to attribute corporate pre-tax income.

Spousal support was awarded for a time-limited period, decreasing over time, and a lump sum was granted to the Applicant for specific post-separation debts.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent wrongfully retained their four children in Ontario under the Hague Convention and an order for their return to Melbourne, Australia.

The respondent did not dispute the applicant's custodial rights or Australia as the children's habitual residence, but argued exceptions under Article 13(a) (consent/acquiescence) and 13(b) (grave risk of harm).

The court found no unequivocal consent or acquiescence by the applicant and determined that the alleged past abuse did not meet the high standard for grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the children were ordered to be returned to Australia.

The Applicant sought various orders including vesting of the matrimonial home, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, life insurance, and a divorce.

The Respondent's pleadings were struck due to non-compliance with financial disclosure orders, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court imputed income to the Respondent and granted most of the Applicant's requests for support, equalization, and property transfer, but declined to compel the Respondent to facilitate the children's Romanian passports.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant on a full indemnity basis due to the Respondent's unreasonable conduct.

This trial addressed several family law issues following a separation, including equalization of net family property, child support (lump sum and ongoing s. 7 expenses), and interest on a pension division.

The court dismissed the applicant's claimed date-of-separation debts for lack of proof, increasing his equalization payment obligation to the respondent.

The respondent's request for a lump sum payment for future child support and s. 7 expenses beyond what the applicant agreed to was denied, as the court found no real risk of non-payment.

The applicant's claim for interest on his share of the respondent's pension was dismissed, as it was not provided for in a prior consent order.

Trust proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home were ordered to be held until costs were determined.

The applicant sought interim child support for an adult child (S.H., age 24) with mental and physical health issues, ongoing university costs, counselling costs, and interim disbursements for legal and expert fees.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking a psychological assessment of S.H., disclosure, and an order to file cryptocurrency investment documents under seal or partially redacted due to security risks.

The court found S.H. was entitled to interim child support and some post-secondary education expenses.

It granted reduced interim disbursements to the applicant for legal and expert fees, to be treated as a loan.

The respondent's request for a psychological assessment of S.H. was adjourned to allow S.H. to obtain independent legal advice, and the request for cryptocurrency redaction was granted due to security concerns.

The respondent brought a motion to change a consent order regarding child access, child support, and travel consents.

The applicant sought to reduce the respondent's access and modify travel consent requirements.

The court varied the access schedule, granting the respondent increased day access and conditional overnight access upon suitable accommodation.

The respondent's requests to reduce child support and expunge arrears were dismissed, as no material change in circumstances was found to warrant a reduction from the previously consented amount.

Travel consent requirements were modified, allowing the applicant to travel within Canada without the respondent's written consent under specific conditions, but retaining the requirement for international travel, school removal, or if it impinged on access.

The respondent was also ordered to promptly sign government documents.

The trial addressed equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The court found no equalization payment owing as the respondent's taxi business in Cuba, purchased with personal injury damages, was excluded property.

Retroactive child support was awarded to the applicant based on imputed income for the respondent's undeclared cash earnings.

Retroactive and ongoing compensatory spousal support was also awarded to the applicant, with the court departing from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to economic disadvantages and financial hardship arising from her traditional caregiving role during the marriage.

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.