Mario D. Faieta

The applicant sought an order to validate the Last Will and Testament of the deceased, which was missing one witness signature, pursuant to section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court applied the two-part test under section 21.1, finding the document authentic and reflective of the deceased's fixed and final testamentary intentions.

The application was granted, validating the will and appointing the applicant as Estate Trustee.

This motion addressed three issues: the addition of parties to a trust dispute, the appropriate method of service for parties residing in Israel under the Hague Service Convention, and costs.

The court ordered the addition of the issue of Gershon Kaplan and Adina Gordon as party defendants, including the Children's Lawyer for minor/unascertained beneficiaries, finding their presence necessary for effective adjudication.

Regarding service abroad, the court held that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention authorizes service of an originating process by postal channels, rejecting the argument that "send" does not include "serve" and clarifying that prior case law suggesting otherwise (e.g., Wilson v. Servier Canada Inc.) is no longer good law.

The court directed service on the added parties in Israel by a method authorized by Article 10, including registered mail.

No costs were awarded due to the plaintiff's non-opposition on the first issue and the novelty of the second issue.

The Applicant sought orders for a significant distribution from the net proceeds of sale of a jointly held property and substantial interim legal fees and disbursements.

The Respondent opposed, proposing a smaller, equal distribution of proceeds and challenging the quantum of interim fees.

The court ordered an equal distribution of $250,000 to each party from the sale proceeds and significantly reduced the Applicant's requested interim fees, ordering the Respondent to pay $725,000 for the Applicant's future litigation expenses.

The court found the Applicant's claims for spousal support and equalization had merit, but emphasized the need for reasonableness in fee requests and the complexity of financial disclosure.

The appellants appealed a certification order in a price-fixing class action regarding packaged bread.

They argued the motions judge erred by excluding indirect purchasers who bought bread from non-defendant retailers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly settled the certification order to reflect his reasons and the nature of the single conspiracy pleaded, which required the product to pass through both a defendant producer and a defendant retailer.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for interim child and spousal support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed the applicant father's income at $396,634 for support purposes, rejecting his request for a three-year average.

Interim child support was ordered on a set-off basis due to shared parenting, and interim spousal support was set to achieve a 50/50 split of net disposable income, applying an SSAG exception for compelling financial circumstances.

The respondent mother's request for security for support via life insurance was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding no basis for the respondent's request for exclusive possession, but stipulated that the sale completion should not occur before July 1, 2024.

The applicant sought to suspend the appointment of the primary respondent as Estate Trustee and appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL), alleging conflicts of interest and mismanagement regarding the sale of an estate-owned property.

The primary respondent, supported by the co-respondent, opposed the application, arguing her actions were in the best interest of the estate and that the applicant was in conflict.

The court dismissed the application for an ETDL, finding no clear evidence to warrant the removal of the Estate Trustee, and instead ordered the Estate Trustee to proceed with listing the property for sale on the open market and to commence an application to pass her accounts.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for withholding parenting time of their child, J.S., contrary to existing court orders.

The court found that the applicant mother intentionally withheld the child from the respondent father's parenting time since August 2, 2023, and that her actions were not in the child's best interests but rather aimed at harming the respondent's relationship with the child.

The court established contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and adjourned the matter for a penalty hearing.

The applicant mother sought an advance on equalization of $10,505,000 to address significant income tax liabilities related to corporate assets managed by the respondent father in her name.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to set aside or vary existing preservation orders, arguing financial transparency and hardship.

The court granted the applicant an advance on equalization of $7,975,007.60, finding a clear need for the funds to discharge tax liabilities created by the respondent and that the advance would not exceed the likely final equalization payment.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, finding his financial disclosure lacked transparency and his claims of hardship were unsubstantiated.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking temporary spousal and child support, retroactive support, interim disbursements, and insurance orders.

The Respondent sought lower spousal support and dismissal of the Applicant's other claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the Applicant and, for support purposes, excluded the Respondent's RRSP withdrawals from his income.

The court determined interim spousal and child support amounts, found two of the three adult children remained children of the marriage for support purposes, and ordered equal contribution to section 7 expenses after RESP exhaustion.

The Applicant's claims for retroactive support, interim disbursements, and insurance were dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of his three children to Ontario after the respondent mother wrongfully removed them to Pakistan in breach of existing court orders.

The court found jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) despite the children and mother being outside Ontario and the Hague Convention not being in effect between Canada and Pakistan.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the father's care, granted him sole interim decision-making, and directed Ontario police to assist upon their return.

Other relief, including contempt and freezing accounts, was denied or deferred.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a temporary order for primary care of the child and access to the matrimonial home for appraisal.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought an order to relocate with the child to Windsor, Ontario.

The court maintained the child's primary residence with the mother but granted the father significant temporary parenting time, including overnights, based on the child's best interests and the principle of maximum contact.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate and ordered her to provide the father's appraiser access to the matrimonial home.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking permission to travel to Jamaica with his six-year-old son.

The applicant mother opposed, citing concerns about abduction risk, safety, and the child's stated preference.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children’s Law Reform Act, found insufficient evidence to support the mother's fears regarding abduction or safety.

The motion was granted, allowing the father to travel with the child, and the mother's consent was dispensed with.

The applicant was also ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought temporary orders for imputation of income, child support, and spousal support, while the respondent brought a cross-motion for increased parenting time.

The court imputed an income of $60,000 per year to the respondent, ordered interim child support of $915 per month, and dismissed the applicant's claim for interim spousal support due to disputed facts.

The respondent's request for increased overnight parenting time was granted, as it was deemed in the children's best interests.

The Applicant mother's motion to bifurcate the trial was settled by consent.

The Respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking leave to compel the immediate partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home or to obtain a $200,000 line of credit secured against his share.

The court dismissed the Respondent's cross-motion, primarily because he failed to obtain prior leave as mandated by a previous court order.

Addressing the merits, the court found that selling the matrimonial home would prejudice the Applicant's claims and was not in the child's best interests.

Furthermore, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to compel the encumbrance of the matrimonial home against the Applicant's objection.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary sealing orders, publication bans, exclusion of the public from proceedings, and initialization of names.

The primary purpose of these orders was to prevent the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from becoming aware of a multi-million dollar tax liability, thereby preserving the applicant's ability to apply to the CRA's Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP).

The tax liability allegedly arose from the respondent father's financial actions during the marriage, including failing to file tax returns for a company in which the applicant was a shareholder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that preventing financial harm to children by hiding tax liability from the CRA was not an "important public interest" sufficient to override the open court principle under the *Sherman Estate* test.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a parenting order to increase his parenting time with his 10-year-old son, seeking equal time during summers immediately and during the school year from Grade 7.

He argued a material change in circumstances due to his increased work-from-home flexibility and the child's age.

The respondent mother opposed, asserting no material change and potential disruption to the child's routine.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding he failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, as his work flexibility lacked sufficient detail and the child's aging alone was not determinative.

The respondent's request for section 7 expenses was also dismissed as not properly before the court.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

Paula Bateman, former counsel for the Applicant, brought a motion for leave to make costs submissions for the period she represented the Applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Ms. Bateman, as neither a party nor current counsel, lacked standing to bring such a motion under the Family Law Rules.

The court also noted the motion was unnecessary as her bills were included in the Applicant's costs submissions.

The court ordered Ms. Bateman to pay costs of $1,000 to the Respondent.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to remove a fraudulent charge on a jointly owned rental property, obtain a no-dealings order, and terminate child support payments.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with court orders regarding the property's sale and had registered a $650,000 charge in favour of her mother without evidence of a legitimate loan, seemingly to frustrate the sale.

The court found the charge to be a fraudulent conveyance, declared it null and void, and ordered its removal.

It also granted a no-dealings order for both the rental property and the matrimonial home and terminated child support retroactively, as the children had primarily resided with the applicant since September 2022, constituting a substantial change in circumstances.

Both the Applicant and Respondent brought motions seeking an interim variation of the summer parenting time schedule established by a final order.

The court applied the test for interim variation, which requires strong prima facie proof of a material change in circumstances, an important parenting issue, urgent circumstances, and the remedy being in the child's best interests.

The court found that neither party had demonstrated a strong prima facie proof of a material change in circumstances.

Consequently, both motions were dismissed, and the provisions of the original Final Order were directed to govern the summer schedule, with specific timelines for the parties to make their selections.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the Applicant father's Hague Convention application for the return of his daughter to Florida.

The Respondent mother sought $64,379.73 in full indemnity costs and requested the order be enforceable as a support order.

The court applied the principles of costs in family law, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

It found the Respondent's counsel's billed time excessive and dismissed the claim for full indemnity costs, as no basis under the Family Law Rules was established.

The request to deem the costs a support order was also denied, as the original application did not involve support issues.

The court awarded the Respondent $35,000.00 in costs.