Mark Edward Kowalsky

The plaintiff, Denise Asselin-Kowalsky, brought a motion for an interlocutory worldwide Mareva injunction against the defendants, Mark Kowalsky and Catherine Kowalsky, to prevent them from dissipating assets.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made full and frank disclosure, established a strong prima facie case, demonstrated that the defendants possessed assets within the jurisdiction, and showed a real risk of those assets being removed or disposed of.

The plaintiff also provided an undertaking as to damages.

The court also addressed costs, finding the plaintiff entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The parties reached a settlement on the second day of a family law trial, leaving the issues of costs and minor chattel disputes to the court.

The respondent sought $1,000 in damages for damaged or missing chattels, which the court largely dismissed as petty, save for $150 for a missing video game.

On costs, the court applied Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, finding the applicant unreasonably delayed accepting the respondent's reasonable settlement offer made months prior.

The respondent was awarded full recovery costs from the date of the offer, fixed at $17,500.

This family law trial addressed a mother's request to relocate with her child, custody arrangements, and child and spousal support.

The court denied the mother's request to move the child's residence more than 100 km from the father, finding it not in the child's best interests due to significant health challenges and the impact on the child's relationship with the father and extended family.

The mother was granted sole custody, with a detailed parenting schedule for the father.

The court ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing support, but dismissed the mother's claim for spousal support, concluding that the parties' relationship, despite having a child, lacked the economic interdependency required for cohabitation under the Family Law Act.

The court also expressed concerns about the Children's Aid Society's investigation process and the tactical use of its involvement by both parents.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to hold the respondent mother in contempt for allegedly breaching multiple provisions of a prior consent order governing parenting time, counselling, communication, and payment obligations.

The court emphasized that contempt in family law proceedings is a remedy of last resort requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a clear order was wilfully disobeyed.

The court also held that an arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to determine or punish contempt of court and questioned the validity of a prior arbitration-based contempt penalty incorporated into a court order.

After reviewing each alleged breach, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish deliberate non-compliance.

The motion was dismissed and the respondent was entitled to seek costs.

Following a prior finding that the respondent was in contempt of a family court order, the court considered sentencing and costs.

The respondent had wilfully breached multiple provisions of a final parenting order, including failing to return the parties’ adult but developmentally delayed child after access and attempting to involve a previously retained lawyer contrary to the order’s process.

The court emphasized deterrence and the need to uphold the authority of court orders in family proceedings.

A suspended custodial sentence, financial penalties, strict behavioural restraints, and enforcement mechanisms were imposed.

The respondent was also ordered to pay full indemnity costs.

The applicant brought motions for contempt against the respondent for failing to return their developmentally delayed daughter after an access visit and for having the daughter interviewed by a lawyer, in breach of a final order.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to appoint a representative for the daughter.

The court found the respondent deliberately and willfully breached the order, noting her history of contemptuous behaviour.

The respondent's cross-motion was dismissed as not being in the daughter's best interests.

The respondent was found in contempt, with sentencing and costs to be determined at a later date.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion in a family law proceeding alleging multiple breaches of prior court orders by the respondent mother.

The court had previously found the respondent in contempt for failing to produce counselling records, failing to comply with a parenting schedule requiring attendance at children’s baseball activities, and failing to transfer ownership of equipment as ordered.

At sentencing, the court determined that some contempt had been belatedly purged while other breaches remained incapable of remedy.

The court imposed financial penalties totalling $800 for the contempts and awarded substantial full recovery costs to the applicant due to the respondent’s bad faith delay and repeated failure to comply with disclosure obligations.

Additional costs were ordered against the respondent and partially against her counsel for adjournments and procedural delays.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a default judgment granting divorce and corollary relief.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent's affidavit material filed in support of the ex parte motion for default judgment misled the court by failing to disclose that an answer and counter-petition had been served, misstating child support payments, and failing to disclose that the appellant had counsel of record.

The appeal was allowed and the default judgment was set aside in relation to the corollary relief due to the want of full and fair disclosure.