Marvin Kurz

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking to restore an alleged 50/50 shared parenting status quo, claiming the applicant mother unilaterally withheld his parenting time.

The court found the motion was not urgent, as the mother had not withheld access but merely sought to return to the pre-pandemic status quo of alternate weekends.

The court ordered that the children primarily reside with the mother on an interim basis, with the father having parenting time on alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the mother.

In a supplementary decision following an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought to enforce support and equalization orders against the respondent's corporation.

The court pierced the corporate veil, finding the corporation was the respondent's alter ego and used to shield assets from the applicant.

The court also granted a vesting order directing financial institutions to transfer funds directly to the applicant, despite the relief not being specifically pleaded, as the court has broad equitable jurisdiction and the respondent suffered no prejudice due to his complete failure to participate or provide disclosure.

The respondent wife brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant husband's claim for an equalization payment as statute-barred.

The central issue was the parties' date of separation, with the wife claiming 1986 and the husband claiming 2015.

The court reviewed the conflicting evidence regarding their living arrangements, financial interdependence, and relationship dynamics over a 29-year period.

Concluding that credibility issues prevented a determination on the written record alone, the court declined to grant summary judgment and ordered a time-limited mini-trial to hear oral evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against three properties.

The defendants consented to a CPL against one property and the plaintiffs withdrew their claim against another.

The remaining issue was whether a CPL should be granted against the third property.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the third property, finding that the plaintiffs had signed a release, the limitation period had likely expired, the property was not unique, and the claim was essentially for the return of a deposit.

The 19-year-old offender, who was 16 at the time of the offences, was convicted of multiple counts of robbery with a firearm and unlawful confinement relating to a string of convenience store robberies.

The Crown sought an adult sentence of eight years.

The court found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, noting the offender's complex trauma, impulsivity, and history in the child welfare system.

The court imposed the maximum youth sentence of three years, comprising two years in closed custody and one year of community supervision, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a temporary parenting order to obtain shared custody on a 2-2-5-5 basis.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure of the father's psychiatric records, disability benefit applications, and a Voice of the Child report.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no material change in circumstances that would compel a change to the interim parenting arrangement.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering the disclosure of the father's medical and financial records, finding that the need to determine the children's best interests outweighed any claim of privilege.

The self-represented applicant sought leave to bring an urgent motion for exclusive possession or partition and sale of a home, citing job loss as the urgency.

The court dismissed the request without prejudice due to numerous procedural and substantive defects.

The parties appeared to be unmarried, precluding an order for exclusive possession under the Family Law Act.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish ownership for partition and sale, and failed to serve the respondent, who resided in Serbia, in accordance with the Hague Service Convention.

The applicant mother and respondent father both appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial issues.

The mother appealed the arbitrator's decision requiring her to return with the children from Indiana to Ontario, arguing it failed to prioritize the children's best interests and the maximum contact principle.

The father appealed the arbitrator's decision granting the mother primary care and final decision-making authority upon their return to Ontario.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both appeals regarding the parenting issues, finding the arbitrator made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the return to Ontario and the parenting arrangements, while reserving judgment on the financial issues.

In an uncontested trial following a 29-year marriage, the applicant sought spousal support, an equalization payment, and the partition and sale of jointly owned properties.

The respondent, who was noted in default and failed to provide financial disclosure, controlled significant corporate assets and income.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $250,000 per year and awarded the applicant lump sum spousal support of $296,010 to mitigate the risk of non-payment.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $2,170,144.73 and granted the applicant exclusive control over the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and cottage.

The applicant father brought a motion to reinstate access to his 11-year-old son after the respondent mother unilaterally terminated it.

The mother argued the father was cruel, the child did not want to see him alone, and the father could not care for the child's special medical needs.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and was filled with hyperbole.

The court held that financial disputes do not justify terminating access and ordered a gradual reinstatement of the father's parenting time.

The court declined to order a police enforcement clause, finding it would be counterproductive.

The respondent step-daughter brought a motion to have life insurance proceeds paid out to her as estate trustee, and sought to dispense with service on her step-brother, who was the sole beneficiary but had been convicted in Lebanon of murdering the insured.

The court dismissed the request to dispense with service, finding that the step-daughter had not demonstrated that service was impractical or impossible.

The court noted that even convicted murderers have rights to notice in civil proceedings, and adjourned the motion to allow for service or an application for substituted service.

The respondent husband moved to enforce a spousal support settlement agreement with the applicant wife.

The wife resisted, alleging the husband failed to disclose a new, significantly higher-paying job before accepting her offer.

The court found the husband's non-disclosure of his impending employment change and substantial income increase to be deliberate and material.

This informational asymmetry compromised the wife's ability to negotiate fairly, leading to an unfair agreement.

The court exercised its discretion to refuse to enforce the settlement, emphasizing the fundamental duty of full and honest financial disclosure in family law.

The husband's motion for judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

Peri Formwork Systems Inc. ("Peri") moved for partial summary judgment against Future Design Canada Inc. ("Future") for $52,865.75, representing unpaid invoices for industrial construction equipment rental.

Future defended by alleging an oral "pay when paid" agreement and claiming overcharges.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding that the written "entire agreement" clause governed, and Future's course of conduct contradicted the alleged oral agreement.

The court also found Future's overcharging allegations vague and unsupported by evidence.

Partial summary judgment was granted to Peri, and the balance of the action (trust claim) was dismissed with Peri's consent to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicants (grandchildren) sought occupation rent and damages from the respondent (son) for his exclusive occupation of a co-owned home and for property damage/removed items following the death of their grandparents.

The parties had previously settled the ownership and possession issues.

The court found the respondent unjustly enriched by his exclusive occupation and awarded occupation rent for a 15-month period, along with damages for specific property damage (hardwood floor) and improperly removed fixtures (chandeliers).

Other damage claims related to the general condition of the home were denied, as they were deemed to have been factored into the property's valuation during the buy-out.

The court also addressed the admissibility of expert evidence regarding market rent.

This endorsement from a settlement conference addresses financial disclosure and parenting issues.

Regarding financial disclosure, the court directed the parties' Certified Business Valuators to confer and agree on necessary disclosure, with any disagreements to be addressed at a subsequent conference or motion.

On parenting, the court vacated the applicant's scheduled summary judgment motion for final custody and supervised access, exercising case management powers under the Family Law Rules.

The judge emphasized that the custody issue was not urgent, and vacating the motion would encourage alternative dispute resolution and ensure proportionate use of court resources, especially given court backlogs and upcoming changes to the Divorce Act.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's parenting time, alleging he breached COVID-19 protocols by taking the children hiking, to supermarkets, and to his parents' cottage.

The father brought a cross-motion to continue his access and prohibit the mother from surveilling him, after discovering she had placed a tracking device in the children's backpack.

The court declined to suspend the father's access, finding no child protection concerns, but imposed specific COVID-19 safety restrictions.

The court also prohibited the mother from tracking the father and ordered her to produce all surveillance records, utilizing its jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Family Law Rules to manage the high-conflict situation.

The court addressed costs for a prior motion where the respondent father sought parenting relief.

The applicant mother was largely successful in resisting the father's requests regarding the children's access and communication, though the father obtained some relief regarding the location of access and the continuation of a prior consent order.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs, while the father argued for no costs or a substantial reduction.

The court, applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, found the mother to be the more successful party overall, but noted her offer to settle lacked a "true element of compromise" and her unreasonable behaviour in failing to commence recommended counselling.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 for the mother, payable by the father upon specific future events.

The applicant sought possession of two trucks under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The respondents failed to participate in the application, despite adjournments to seek counsel, and made misrepresentations about retaining a lawyer and vehicle insurance.

The court addressed significant evidentiary issues with the applicant's affidavits, particularly concerning indirect hearsay from counsel and the improper use of business records and electronic evidence rules under the Evidence Act.

Despite these evidentiary deficiencies, the court found sufficient admissible evidence, including the respondent's implicit admissions, to grant the applicant possession of the vehicles and costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $20,361.76 following a motion where she obtained a preservation order and financial disclosure after the respondent breached a prior court order by surreptitiously refinancing a property.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by intentionally breaching the order to conceal information.

However, because success on the motion was divided and the applicant also acted somewhat unreasonably, the court awarded costs of $15,000 to the applicant, payable upon delayed terms due to the respondent's unemployment.

The creditor moved without notice for an order of substituted service of its notice of motion, seeking a contempt order against the debtor.

The debtor had a documented history of evading service in the proceeding.

The court granted the order for substituted service, finding a consistent pattern of evasion and certainty of the debtor's address, which made it likely the notice would come to her attention.

The court emphasized the quasi-criminal nature of contempt motions, requiring close scrutiny and considering substituted service as a last resort, but found it justified in this case.

Costs were fixed at $3,500 for the creditor.