Martine Ordon

This motion concerns parenting time for three young children (3-year-old twins and a 2-year-old) following the arrest and subsequent withdrawal of criminal charges against the mother.

The mother sought to vary a temporary parenting order that had limited her to seven hours of supervised parenting time per week.

The father opposed the variation, arguing the mother engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, including orchestrating an elaborate scheme involving impersonation and threats.

The court found insufficient evidence to conclude the mother was responsible for the scheme, but remained concerned about her pattern of fabricating stories about deceased or non-existent children told to multiple individuals.

The court increased the mother's parenting time to include overnight visits supervised by maternal grandparents, while maintaining supervision pending trial.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order regarding spousal support, life insurance, occupation rent, and the valuation of net family property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, principle, or palpable and overriding error of fact in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The court also declined to address the issue of pre- and post-judgment interest as it was not raised at trial.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to decide two post-trial issues: entitlement to $15,000 held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, and entitlement to the contents of a safe.

The court found it had jurisdiction but could not decide the issues on the record before it.

The parties were directed to commence fresh proceedings to resolve these matters.

The applicant mother sought to temporarily suspend or supervise the father's parenting time and requested the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging breaches of a prior parenting order due to the mother's intentional withholding of their son.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding her supporting evidence inadmissible and her actions to be self-help.

While the court found the mother intentionally breached the parenting order, it exercised its discretion not to issue a formal contempt finding, instead declaring the breach and imposing conditions to ensure future compliance, including ordering the mother to pay the father full indemnity costs.

Branko Skrak brought a motion for a stay of a spousal support order granted in a prior judgment, pending appeal.

The motion was brought under Rule 63.02(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing serious issues with the spousal support and equalization orders, irreparable harm due to inability to pay and non-recoverability, and balance of convenience.

The court applied the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General).

The motion was dismissed, primarily because Mr. Skrak failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as he provided no financial evidence of distress and offered to pay the retroactive support into court.

The court also noted the deference due to the trial judge's findings of fact regarding spousal support entitlement and quantum.

The applicant mother was found in contempt for denying court-ordered parenting time to the respondent father for 3.5 months.

This endorsement concerns the sentencing hearing.

The court dismissed the mother's claim that she had purged her contempt, finding no mitigating factors and several aggravating factors, including a pattern of non-compliance.

The court ordered the mother to pay a suspended fine of $15,000 to the Minister of Finance, conditional on future compliance with parenting orders, and to pay the father $15,755.03 in costs on a full recovery basis due to her bad faith conduct and prior non-compliance with costs orders.

The applicant mother sought supervised parenting time for the respondent father, preservation of cottage sale proceeds, and temporary child and spousal support.

The respondent father cross-moved for unsupervised parenting time.

The court denied the applicant's request for supervised parenting, granting the respondent unsupervised parenting time with a specific schedule.

Issues regarding the cottage property were adjourned to a later date to allow the added respondent (the father's sister, legal owner of the cottage) to make submissions.

Temporary financial orders were made to maintain the status quo, requiring the respondent to pay certain household and vehicle expenses, and an uncharacterized amount of $6,000 per month to the applicant, pending full financial disclosure and a future case conference.

The respondent was also ordered to enroll in the Caring Dads program.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 20-year marriage.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent gifted the matrimonial home to her, spousal support, and a restraining order.

The respondent sought occupation rent and various deductions from his net family property.

The court found that the transfer of the matrimonial home was not a gift but was done to shield it from creditors, resulting in a resulting trust where the respondent held a one-half beneficial interest.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $368,029.86 and indefinite spousal support.

The claims for a restraining order and occupation rent were dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

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 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 sought to set aside a domestic contract resolving child support and parenting issues, arguing the respondent mother repudiated the agreement through multiple breaches, including interfering with access and violating confidentiality provisions.

The corporate applicant, controlled by the father, also sought to enforce a mortgage on the mother's home.

The court found that while the mother breached certain access and confidentiality terms, her conduct did not amount to a repudiation or fundamental breach of the agreement as a whole.

The court also dismissed the mortgage enforcement action, finding the mother was not in default and was entitled to exercise her option under the agreement to redeem the mortgage.

The applications to set aside the agreement and enforce the mortgage were dismissed.

The applicant corporation, controlled by the respondent's former partner, brought a motion for a mandatory order compelling the respondent to redeem a mortgage on her home prior to an upcoming family law trial.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test as modified for mandatory orders, finding the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the validity of the underlying Minutes of Settlement was a central issue for the impending trial, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The moving party wife sought interim costs and disbursements of $500,000 to fund her family law and oppression remedy claims against the responding party husband, who controlled the family's closely-held corporations.

She also sought temporary spousal support and an order compelling the husband to answer undertakings and refusals from his questioning.

The court awarded $250,000 in interim costs under the OBCA as an advance against her shareholdings, finding her oppression claim had sufficient merit and she lacked liquid resources.

The court also ordered the husband to pay $3,000 per month in temporary spousal support to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes, and compelled him to answer the majority of the outstanding undertakings and refusals.

The applicant brought a motion alleging the respondent breached a preservation order.

The respondent filed a cross-motion seeking clarification that the preservation order permitted him to sell real property, provided proceeds were held in trust.

The court ordered the respondent to hold net sale proceeds from two properties in trust and to provide a list of assets for his corporations.

The applicant's request to suspend the listings of two other properties was denied due to insufficient evidence, with the court suggesting the respondent recast his cross-motion for leave to sell if parties could not agree.

The court addressed costs following a successful summary judgment motion by the respondents, Stephen and William Elias, against the applicant, Emma Trefler, regarding the validity of a $950,000 mortgage.

Stephen Elias sought full or substantial indemnity costs for both the summary judgment motion and an earlier emergency motion.

William Elias sought substantial indemnity costs for the summary judgment motion.

The court found Stephen's offer to settle did not comply with Family Law Rule 18(14) due to demanding full indemnity costs as a condition of acceptance and lacking a true element of compromise, and William's offer was deficient for not specifying the scale of costs.

Crucially, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 24(4) of the Family Law Rules to deprive Stephen of costs due to his unreasonable and abusive behaviour, including "hurtful, abusive and hateful" anti-Semitic text messages to the applicant, which created a toxic environment and prevented settlement.

Despite William not exhibiting the same behaviour, the court found that due to the identity of interest with Stephen and the circumstances necessitating William's involvement (Stephen's prior agreement to provide proof of loan and William's inability to fully account for funds), ordering the applicant to pay William's costs would defeat the purpose of Rule 24(4).

Consequently, all parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

The respondents, the applicant's former spouse and his father, brought motions for summary judgment to determine the validity of a $950,000 mortgage registered against a property owned by the former spouse.

The applicant argued the mortgage was a sham designed to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found that the father had advanced the funds to construct a home on the property and that the applicant had not signed the mortgage acknowledgment under duress.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the mortgage valid and ordering the release of $950,000 from the sale proceeds to the father.

The applicant mother sought temporary spousal support of $2,100 per month and sought to impute the respondent father's income at $102,884 annually while claiming zero income for herself.

The respondent father sought temporary child support from the mother, claiming she should be imputed minimum wage income of $29,120 annually, and sought spousal support at the low range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court determined that the father deliberately reduced his income from $102,884 to $50,000 by changing positions, but found this reduction reasonable due to new child care responsibilities.

However, the court imputed the father's income at $80,000 due to inadequate financial disclosure and suspicious circumstances.

The court found the mother entitled to temporary spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds and ordered the father to pay $1,350 per month, significantly exceeding the SSAG ranges due to compelling financial circumstances and basic needs exceptions.

The father's claim for child support was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking leave to amend his application, orders compelling the respondent to answer refusals and undertakings, to strike certain paragraphs from the respondent's affidavit, and to provide medical information for the parties' child.

The applicant also sought to expand his access to the child to include one overnight per month.

The respondent consented to the application amendment and some production.

The court granted the applicant's requests for expanded overnight access, full medical information for the child, and struck inflammatory paragraphs from the respondent's affidavit.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant mother sought full recovery costs of $62,939.39 after being largely successful in custody and parenting motions.

The respondent father sought costs payable in cause or limited to $10,500.

The court found the father acted in bad faith due to his conduct, including involving the child in litigation, non-compliance with orders, and making a baseless insinuation of judicial bias.

Despite the mother not making an offer to settle and her counsel's time appearing excessive, the court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, reflecting disapproval of the father's conduct and a discount for the mother's omissions.

The request to enforce the award as a support order was declined.