Lyna Perelman

This is a costs decision following a motion to vary supervised access.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing complete success and bad faith by the Respondent.

The Respondent argued mixed success and unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant was not entirely successful, rejected the bad faith claim, and deemed the motion straightforward.

It also noted both parties' problematic conduct.

The court awarded the Applicant significantly reduced costs, considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the parties' conduct.

The Respondent brought a motion to vary an interim order for supervised parenting time, seeking unsupervised access to the child.

The Applicant opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the history, including the Respondent's prior absconding with the child and ongoing conflictual behavior during supervised visits, and the Applicant's hypervigilance.

The court declined to vary the supervised access order, finding it was in the child's best interests to maintain stability and avoid parental conflict.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer to assist in determining the child's best interests and managing parental conflict.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful in obtaining an equalization payment and spousal support, the applicant sought costs of $589,650.95 on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the costs were excessive, particularly regarding the use of two counsel at trial.

The court found that while the factual complexity justified two counsel to a limited extent, the lack of explanation for specific tasks warranted a reduction for duplication.

The court fixed costs at $300,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The parties separated after a 14-year marriage.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property, spousal support, and retroactive child support.

The respondent claimed a constructive trust interest in several of the applicant's properties and businesses, and brought a consolidated civil action for unjust enrichment and damages related to a business eviction.

The court dismissed the respondent's trust and civil claims, finding no unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $1,803,824.61, largely preserving the applicant's inheritance exclusions.

The court also awarded the applicant $750,000.00 in lump-sum spousal support due to her health condition and the need for a clean break, but dismissed claims for retroactive child support.

The parties brought urgent motions regarding their four-year-old child's school attendance and parenting schedule during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother sought an order for in-person attendance at a private school, while the father sought homeschooling or online learning, citing health risks.

The court ordered in-person attendance, finding no medical evidence of an unacceptable risk of harm to the child or the father.

The court also rejected the father's request for an equal time-sharing arrangement due to the high conflict between the parties, but ordered a graduated increase in his parenting time, including overnights.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for enforcement of a separation agreement, damages, and relief related to foreign divorce proceedings, as well as a motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding the property transfer, finding genuine issues for trial concerning the alleged breach and limitation periods.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims related to the Ukrainian divorce proceedings, as they fell outside Ontario's jurisdiction and disclosed no known cause of action.

The motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant was also dismissed.

Following urgent motions regarding a child's school placement, the successful respondent father sought costs.

The court found the applicant mother's litigation conduct, which included filing voluminous and disproportionate materials, to be unreasonable.

The father had also made offers to settle that were as favourable or more favourable than the motion's outcome.

The court awarded the father costs approaching full recovery, reduced slightly for his counsel's role in scheduling missteps, fixing the award at $22,500.

At a case conference in a high-conflict family law proceeding, the court noted the children were living in increasingly chaotic and harmful circumstances.

The respondent mother had been granted sole authority to decide the son's school, but the son was not attending regularly and was completely detached.

Recognizing that the Superior Court could not relieve the chaos and that the Children's Aid Society was deferring to the court, the judge ordered a stay of all proceedings, including the applicant father's trust claims, to allow the Society to investigate and potentially apprehend the children.

The respondent mother brought a motion to temporarily change custody and access, while the applicant father cross-moved for a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's bail conditions prohibiting communication with the respondent, which was fundamental to their joint custody arrangement.

The court declined to grant the respondent sole custody or supervised access, finding it premature and not in the children's best interests at this stage.

However, the court granted the respondent temporary sole authority for educational decisions for one child, made orders for summer arrangements, and directed a referral for therapeutic intervention for the family.

The court also consolidated the files and converted a previous "final" order into a "temporary" order, scheduling a case conference to address outstanding issues.

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.