Mark Greenstein

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a Voice of the Child (VOC) report for the parties' 11-year-old child regarding a proposed move to St. Catharines.

The respondent father opposed this and brought a cross-motion for retroactive and prospective child support, arguing the children primarily resided with him.

The court ordered a VOC report, emphasizing the child's right to express views.

Regarding child support, the court found insufficient evidence to determine a shared parenting arrangement and thus ordered the mother to pay temporary prospective table child support of $2,110/month.

The court declined to make a determination on retroactive child support due to a conflicted record, requiring further evidence and questioning.

The applicant, a former step-parent, sought a contact order with her former partner's child, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The child's biological parents, who share equal parenting time and decision-making responsibility, opposed the contact and brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court applied the principle of parental autonomy, finding that the parents' decision to end contact was reasonable and did not imperil the child's best interests.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, dismissing the application, and awarded costs to the parents.

The respondent mother brought an interim motion for retroactive and ongoing child support from the applicant father in a shared parenting arrangement.

Despite a significant income disparity and previous judicial concerns, the father had paid no child support for 4.5 years.

The court imputed income to the father from January 1, 2023, based on his pre-disability earnings, finding him intentionally underemployed after his disability benefits ceased.

The court declined to impute pre-tax corporate income at this interim stage due to incomplete financial statements.

Retroactive child support was ordered from September 2018, and ongoing set-off child support was ordered.

The court also ordered the father to secure child support payments by naming the mother as beneficiary on his life insurance policy.

The applicant father brought a motion to vaccinate the parties' twelve-year-old daughter, who has high-functioning autism, against the respondent mother's opposition.

The mother argued against urgency and sought to enforce a mediation clause in their separation agreement.

The court found the matter urgent due to the pandemic and systemic delays, and exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to override the mediation clause.

Relying on judicial notice of public health guidance, the court determined that vaccination was in the child's best interests, dismissing the mother's objections based on personal research and natural immunity claims.

The father's motion was granted, and the mother was ordered to pay costs.

The case involved two motions: the Applicant sought temporary spousal and child support retroactive to June 1, 2021, and the Respondent sought to remove the Applicant's counsel, claim tort damages for intrusion upon seclusion, and prevent reliance on improperly obtained emails.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for tort damages as improperly pleaded and premature, and dismissed the motion to remove counsel, finding no evidence of confidential information being shared with counsel.

The court granted the Applicant's motion for interim spousal support of $4,000 per month and child support of $329 per month, both retroactive to July 1, 2021, after imputing an income of $14,500 to the Applicant and deducting the child's ODSP benefits from the child support calculation.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

This appeal arose from a family law dispute concerning spousal support and costs.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's refusal to impute a higher income to the respondent, the quantum of spousal support awarded at the high-end of the guidelines, and the award of full recovery costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding income imputation or her legal conclusions on spousal support and costs.

The court affirmed the trial judge's discretion and the high threshold for appellate intervention on factual matters.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

The applicant wife brought a motion to remove the parties' family law arbitrator, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias and unequal treatment under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The wife's complaints stemmed from a series of procedural and costs awards made by the arbitrator during a high-conflict dispute over child support and parenting.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the arbitrator's decisions were balanced and contextually appropriate, and that the wife's dissatisfaction with the outcomes did not meet the extremely high evidentiary threshold required to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Applicant, Ms. Diamond, sought full recovery of $348,624 in legal and expert fees following her success on key issues of spousal support, income for support, and pension division after an 11-day trial.

The Respondent, Mr. Berman, argued for divided success and sought $74,623 in costs.

The court addressed Mr. Berman's excessive costs submissions, affirming the importance of page limits.

It found Ms. Diamond entitled to costs due to her overall success and Mr. Berman's unreasonable litigation conduct, including his self-representation for much of the proceeding and rigid positions.

However, the court declined to award Mr. Berman costs and reduced Ms. Diamond's claim, finding her unreasonable in failing to accept a mid-trial severable offer regarding pension division.

The court also established a general principle against recovering costs for multiple counsel.

Ms. Diamond was ultimately awarded $180,800 in costs.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the partial release of funds from the sale of the parties' former matrimonial home.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for a lesser release.

The court, considering the parties' financial needs and the presumptive equalization payment, ordered the release of $150,000 to each party, with the father also ordered to pay $4,000 in costs to the mother.

The decision emphasized the need for realistic solutions and good faith communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother brought urgent motions for the partial release of funds held in trust from the sale of the parties’ former matrimonial home.

The court acknowledged the urgency of the request, given the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, and directed the respondent father to file a response to the motions by 3:00 p.m. on the same day.

The court emphasized the need for parties to communicate in good faith and propose realistic solutions during these times, citing principles from *Ribeiro v. Wright*.

A written decision was to be issued after the respondent's submissions.

The case involved a high-conflict family law trial following a 27-year marriage.

Key issues included spousal support entitlement and quantum, imputation of income to the applicant, division of vehicles, and the division of a federal pension at source.

The court found the applicant entitled to high-range spousal support, declined to impute additional income to her, and determined the "normal retirement date" for pension valuation purposes to be age 60 for Group 1 members of the Public Service Superannuation Act.

The court also addressed equalization payments, pre-judgment interest, and post-separation adjustments.

The parties attended a trial scheduling conference for a family law application involving equalization and support.

The applicant was ready for trial, but the self-represented respondent sought an adjournment and estimated a ten-day trial, proposing to tender over 2,000 documents.

The court found the issues were not complex and did not require ten days.

Due to the late delivery of an expert report and the volume of proposed evidence, the court ordered a further settlement conference and issued strict procedural directions regarding disclosure, expert reports, witness statements, and financial statements to ensure the matter proceeds efficiently.

The applicant brought a motion to change spousal support terms set out in a separation agreement, seeking to terminate support based on a material change in circumstances.

Within this proceeding, the applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to retain an expert to value her self-employment income and to provide extensive financial disclosure dating back to 2016.

The court dismissed the request for an expert valuation, finding it disproportionate given the respondent's modest income compared to the applicant's.

The court partially granted the disclosure request, limiting the timeframe to August 2017 to December 2018, balancing the need for a full case with the prohibition against fishing expeditions.

The applicant sought supervised access and custody, while the respondent sought unsupervised access.

The court granted unsupervised access as sought by the respondent and limited rights to the applicant, noting the applicant's tactical use of access as a negotiating lever.

The court emphasized that access is a child's right and not a tool for parental negotiation, and urged both families to reduce acrimony for the child's best interest.

The applicant sought an increase in spousal support and retroactive support based on a separation agreement.

The agreement allowed for a review of support if the respondent obtained his millwright qualification, which he did, resulting in a significant increase in his income.

The court found that the applicant was entitled to an increase in ongoing support but denied retroactive support prior to the agreed review date.

Spousal support was increased from $209 to $600 per month.

The Applicant sought interim and retroactive spousal support and retroactive Section 7 expenses.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for accounting and questioning, and sought dismissal or stay of the Applicant's motion due to non-disclosure or pending a separate action.

The court dismissed the Applicant's claims for retroactive Section 7 expenses and both retroactive and ongoing interim spousal support, citing issues with entitlement, quantum, delay, and conflicting financial disclosure.

The Respondent's request to dismiss or stay the Applicant's motion was also dismissed, but the Applicant was ordered to provide comprehensive financial disclosure.

In a high-conflict family law matter spanning nearly nine years, the applicant sought to dismiss the respondent’s motion to change a final support order and to prohibit him from bringing further motions due to alleged non-disclosure and unpaid costs orders.

The court reviewed extensive procedural history and disclosure disputes.

It held that while disclosure obligations are fundamental, requests must be proportionate and relevant, and striking pleadings or dismissing motions for non-disclosure is an exceptional remedy.

The court found that many disclosure requests were irrelevant or previously ruled unnecessary and that both parties contributed to delay.

Instead of dismissing the motion, the court ordered targeted disclosure from both parties and directed the matter toward a prompt hearing on the merits.

Following dismissal of a motion to set aside a prior order, the successful party sought costs.

The court applied Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, which establishes that costs generally follow the event.

As the unsuccessful party filed no materials to rebut the presumption in favour of the successful party receiving costs, the court held that the successful party was entitled to recover costs of the motion.

Full indemnity costs were not awarded because there were no settlement offers or special circumstances warranting such recovery.

Costs were fixed at $4,000.