Mark Greenstein

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 a family law trial involving child support, spousal support, and net family property equalization, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court assessed which party achieved greater success and evaluated the parties’ settlement offers and litigation conduct.

The applicant obtained more favourable results on child support and s.7 expenses, while spousal support was not ordered due to her inability to pay.

Although success on property equalization was somewhat mixed, the applicant’s offer to settle was substantially closer to the trial outcome and the respondent’s offer was found unreasonable, particularly given his failure to propose any child support.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs.

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.

Following a family law motion concerning exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, conduct of sale, contempt, and striking of pleadings, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although the moving party achieved partial success by obtaining exclusive possession and conduct of sale, her requests for contempt and striking of pleadings were dismissed, resulting in divided success.

The court nevertheless found the responding party had engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to cooperate with the sale of the home despite a prior consent order, which necessitated the motion.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded reduced costs to the moving party to reflect both the mixed result and the respondent’s conduct.

Following a family law trial, the court addressed costs between former spouses where the applicant had represented herself during the trial.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the reasonableness principles from Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the applicant was the clear victor on the main issue concerning contribution to a child’s medical school expenses.

The court confirmed that self‑represented litigants may receive a moderate allowance for time spent performing work normally done by counsel but not at full counsel rates.

The applicant’s claimed hourly rate and time estimates were significantly reduced and some disbursements were disallowed, including interest on funds borrowed to finance legal fees.

After considering partial success by the respondent on some issues and apportionment under Rule 24, the court fixed total costs payable to the applicant at $12,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant sought a divorce, spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court dismissed the spousal support claim, finding no basis to impute income to the respondent and noting the applicant's disability pension had not yet terminated.

On child support, the court applied the Farden factors and determined that the eldest child attending medical school was no longer a child of the marriage, relieving the applicant from contributing to those expenses due to the family's modest means.

Retroactive and ongoing child support was ordered for the two younger children.

The court also ordered the equalization of net family property, making specific adjustments for post-separation expenses related to the respondent's exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

Following earlier trial reasons and supplementary endorsements in a family law proceeding, the applicant brought an urgent post‑judgment motion concerning enforcement of property and financial orders arising from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent failed to participate or comply with several prior court orders.

The court approved short service, confirmed calculations regarding the sale proceeds, and ordered payment to the applicant from the proceeds with an additional shortfall payable by the respondent.

The court also ordered the respondent to transfer the family vehicle to the applicant and addressed issues relating to enforcement, declining to involve the Family Responsibility Office because the order was not related to support.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, including trial costs and full indemnity costs for post‑trial enforcement motions.

Following earlier reasons for decision that included alternative child support arrangements depending on the children's residence, the court issued a supplementary endorsement clarifying the operative support provisions.

It was confirmed that one child resided with the mother and the other with the father as of August 2012.

The court directed that the child support provisions contained in specified paragraphs of the previously signed judgment be enforced accordingly.

The clarification was provided to assist the Family Responsibility Office in enforcing the order.

A support deduction order was directed to issue.

Following a family law trial, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing clarification requests regarding earlier reasons for decision.

The judge explained the limited post‑trial jurisdiction and emphasized that the role was confined to clarifying the judgment to facilitate preparation of the final order.

The court reviewed the draft order prepared following trial and identified three corrections required to accurately reflect the reasons for decision, including clarification regarding child residence arrangements and the finding that no notional costs of sale were to be applied.

Administrative steps were also directed to process the divorce and to prepare an order involving the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Following the release of reasons after a family law trial, counsel for the applicant and the self‑represented respondent sought clarification of several aspects of the judgment through correspondence.

The court clarified issues relating to the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, the production of automobile insurance information, the division of a pension at source, and the quantum and period of retroactive spousal support.

The court confirmed that a typographical error in the original reasons incorrectly referenced March 2012, clarifying that retroactive spousal support related to the period from March 2010 to August 31, 2012 with a lump‑sum shortfall payment ordered.

The court declined to address several issues raised by the respondent as they involved enforcement matters or issues not raised at trial.

The parties, who were still residing under one roof, sought resolution of their family law dispute following an arranged marriage in Syria.

The court determined the date of separation to be the date of service of legal process.

Due to the high conflict and lack of independent parenting plans, the court deferred final custody and access decisions, instead ordering the immediate listing of the matrimonial home for sale and setting a temporary parenting schedule.

The court calculated net family property, resulting in a nominal equalization payment from the applicant to the respondent, and ordered ongoing child and spousal support based on the respondent's employment income and income imputed to the applicant, along with $10,000 in retroactive spousal support.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate to Rome, Italy, with the parties' two children.

The parties were not separated but agreed to have the mobility issue determined first.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, finding that the mother was the primary caregiver and that her professional and financial prospects, as well as her emotional well-being, would be significantly enhanced in Italy.

The court concluded that the benefits of the relocation outweighed the risks and disruptions, and granted the mother's application to relocate with the children.

The appellant, an unsecured judgment creditor of the respondent's husband, appealed an order setting aside the transfer of the matrimonial home from the respondent to her husband.

The motion judge had found the transfer was void due to undue influence and, alternatively, that the husband held the property in trust for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the finding of undue influence could not stand because it was not pleaded, depriving the appellant of procedural fairness.

However, the Court upheld the finding that the respondent did not intend to gift the property and held an interest by way of resulting or constructive trust, remitting the matter to determine the extent of that interest.

The appellant husband appealed an order reinstating his pleadings on the condition that he comply with a disclosure order and pay $35,000 in interim disbursements plus costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the interim disbursements condition because the motions judge failed to provide reasons, consider the appellant's ability to pay, or give notice that this issue would be decided.

The conditions regarding disclosure and costs were upheld.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to expunge child support arrears that accrued while he was unemployed.

The motion judge had found the appellant intentionally unemployed and imputed income to him based solely on affidavit evidence without cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in rejecting the appellant's uncontradicted affidavit evidence regarding his diligent job search without a trial or cross-examination.

The matter was remitted for a rehearing.

The applicant was injured when the public transit bus he was riding braked suddenly.

He received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them, alleging he was not substantially unable to perform his essential tasks and had defrauded the insurer.

The arbitrator found that an accident had occurred and caused injury, but that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks after June 1991, as his inability to pursue his ambitions was due to a pre-existing depressive illness rather than the accident.

The insurer's claim of fraud was dismissed, and the applicant was awarded the expenses of the arbitration.