Mario D. Faieta

The applicant brought a motion for further financial disclosure from the respondent and his mother, a non-party, in a family law proceeding.

The applicant alleged the respondent transferred over $1.5 million to his mother to defeat her claims for support and equalization.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure was deficient and ordered him to produce extensive personal and corporate banking records.

The court also ordered the respondent's mother to produce her personal bank statements, finding her privacy interests were outweighed by the unexplained transfer of family property.

The respondent mother brought a motion to adjourn the applicant father's application for the return of their two children, who she had wrongfully retained in Colombia.

The court considered the factors for granting an adjournment, emphasizing the best interests of the children and the need for timely resolution in international child abduction cases.

The court found that the respondent was manufacturing delay and dismissed the motion for adjournment, directing her counsel to proceed with the hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce various terms of a domestic contract regarding child support, section 7 expenses, and a previous costs award.

The respondent cross-moved for related relief.

The court ordered the added party to pay the outstanding costs award of $25,800.

The court also directed the parties to calculate the cost of living adjustment for child support and ordered the respondent to pay fixed arrears for nanny, extracurricular, and therapy expenses.

Finally, the court ordered the parties to negotiate adequate life insurance security and exchange annual proof of RESP contributions.

The Applicant father's motion for contempt was adjourned.

At the outset of the contempt motion, the Respondent mother brought motions for recusal and to vacate eleven prior orders.

The court heard the recusal motion, with reasons to follow separately.

The motion to vacate was granted leave in part, specifically to vacate certain orders but not to strike the Applicant's Application, and was adjourned for the Respondent to prepare a Factum.

The Applicant's contempt motion was also adjourned.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion brought by Robin Seligman in a mortgage enforcement action.

Seligman sought costs, as did Sonia Lafontaine and Arthur Froom.

The court awarded costs of $43,196.60, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, to Robin Seligman, to be paid solely by 1285310 Ontario Limited.

The claims for costs by Sonia Lafontaine and Arthur Froom were dismissed, as neither was successful in the underlying motion.

The moving party father brought a motion for a refraining order to enjoin the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from applying to suspend his passport due to child support arrears.

The moving party claimed he was unemployed and needed to travel to Algeria to visit his ill mother.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it had no discretion to interfere because the moving party had not entered into a payment plan or satisfied the Director that he was unable to pay the arrears.

Furthermore, the court noted that even if it had discretion, it would have denied the motion because the moving party did not come to court with clean hands, having prioritized discretionary expenses over child support.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, both parties sought leave to bring motions despite a prior order prohibiting further motions without leave.

The applicant father sought leave to amend his pleadings to request equal parenting time and an order for a third Voice of the Child Report (VOCR).

The respondent mother sought leave to bring motions for interim support and financial disclosure.

The court granted the father's requests, allowing the amendments and ordering a third VOCR, noting the child's right to have her voice heard.

The mother's requests for interim relief were dismissed as they were better suited for the impending trial.

The respondent husband brought a motion to vary a preservation order under section 12 of the Family Law Act to allow him to obtain a mortgage to close the purchase of a pre-construction condominium.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, citing the husband's failure to disclose significant assets, including foreign bank accounts and real estate, and his history of transferring funds out of the country.

Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions, the court found a serious question to be tried regarding the equalization payment, a risk of irreparable harm due to potential dissipation of assets, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The motion to vary the preservation order was dismissed.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order to require the applicant father's parenting time to be supervised.

The father brought a cross-motion for make-up parenting time and police enforcement of the existing order, alleging the mother repeatedly denied his parenting time.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding no cogent evidence that the child was at risk of harm in the father's care.

The court granted the father's cross-motion, awarding make-up parenting time and ordering police enforcement under section 36 of the Children's Law Reform Act due to the mother's repeated breaches of the parenting order.

The applicant father brought an urgent ex parte motion for a restraining order against the respondent mother after she forcibly removed the children from their school in violation of a parenting order.

The court found a legitimate basis for the father's fear for the children's safety and granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the mother from attending within 150 meters of the school.

The remainder of the motion, including a restraining order in respect of the father, was adjourned as urgency was not established.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to strike the respondent mother's pleadings due to her persistent failure to comply with numerous court orders.

The court found that the respondent had willfully disobeyed orders regarding the return of property, provision of passwords, facilitation of communication with the children, cooperation with a section 30 assessment, school enrollment, sale of a rental property, and payment of costs.

Finding this to be an exceptional circumstance where the respondent adopted a 'scorched earth' approach, the court struck her Answer, except for her claims regarding parenting time, and ordered an uncontested trial for the remaining issues.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and an order prohibiting the respondent husband from obtaining further orders until he satisfied outstanding undertakings.

The court found the respondent failed to make sufficient efforts to comply with undertakings to produce contact information and mortgage applications.

The court ordered the respondent to take specific steps to obtain the documents and prohibited him from seeking further orders until the mortgage applications were produced.

The court also found the applicant established a prima facie case for interim spousal support, imputed an income of $300,000 to the respondent, and ordered him to pay $1,790 per month.

The respondent mother brought a motion for leave to re-litigate the children's school enrollment, despite a previous order barring her from bringing further motions until she complied with existing orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding she remained in breach of numerous orders and was attempting to re-litigate a decided issue.

To ensure compliance with the prior order regarding school enrollment, the court granted the applicant father temporary sole decision-making responsibility for education and ordered costs against the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion to proceed to an uncontested trial and to sell the matrimonial home after the respondent failed to file an Answer for over three months.

The respondent requested an extension of time to file his responding materials.

The court dismissed the respondent's request, finding the delay inordinate and unexplained.

The court granted the applicant's motion, allowing her to proceed uncontested and ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, with net proceeds to be held in trust.

The parties, who separated in 2010, disputed the use of a jointly subscribed RESP to fund their daughter's university education.

The applicant father sought to split the RESP based on relative contributions, while the respondent mother sought sole carriage of the RESP to fund the education without providing further financial disclosure.

The court found it lacked authority to split the RESP.

Applying the three certainties of trust, the court held that the separation agreement created an express trust over the RESP for the children's education.

Given the high-conflict nature of the case, the court granted the mother sole authority to disburse the RESP funds for post-secondary expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention for the return of his three-year-old daughter to Florida.

The respondent mother had travelled to Toronto with the child in July 2021 and subsequently decided not to return.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine the child's habitual residence immediately prior to the alleged wrongful retention in December 2021.

The court found that the focal point of the child's life was in Canada, where she had spent a significant portion of her life and where her primary caregiver and extended family resided.

As the child was habitually resident in Canada, the Hague Convention application was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the respondent father's pleadings and impose a daily penalty of $3,500 for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent in breach of numerous obligations, including the failure to deliver an income and business valuation report.

The court ordered that the respondent's pleadings (except regarding parenting) would be struck if he failed to deliver the required reports by a final deadline.

However, the court dismissed the request for a daily monetary penalty, holding that such a penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 1(8) absent a formal finding of civil contempt under Rule 31.

The applicant father brought a motion for an interim order for equal summer parenting time.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing it was a backdoor attempt to vary the existing 5/14 year-round schedule and that the children would be at risk of harm.

The court found that the status quo for summer parenting time was established by the equal sharing arrangement from the previous summer.

The court reviewed the children's best interests, noting the mother's unsubstantiated allegations and lack of cooperation with assessments.

The court granted the father's motion for equal summer parenting time.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' two young children and the suspension of the applicant father's parenting time.

The father had unilaterally withheld the children, claiming the mother was abusing them, and locked out the professional supervisor.

The court found the father's abuse allegations to be unsubstantiated and his conduct raised serious concerns about his stability and the children's safety.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children, suspended the father's in-person parenting time, and included a police enforcement clause.

In a family law proceeding involving claims for child support and a constructive trust, both parties brought motions to compel answers to undertakings, under advisements, and refusals from their respective Questionings.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Family Law Rules to determine which questions must be answered.

The court ordered the applicant to provide various financial documents, including business ledgers subject to a non-disclosure agreement, and ordered the respondent to disclose legal and accounting fees, while dismissing requests for irrelevant banking and business interference information.