Marvin Kurz

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.

The applicant mother appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial matters, specifically moving to stay the parenting provisions requiring the children's return to Ontario by May 31, 2020, and to admit fresh evidence.

The respondent father resisted the motion and sought to admit his own fresh evidence.

The court granted a stay of the parenting provisions until the completion of the appeal, finding a serious issue, irreparable harm to the children's best interests due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on specialized treatment and transition plans, and a balance of convenience favouring the stay.

The court also admitted relevant fresh evidence from both parties, adopting a flexible approach due to the children's best interests and risk of harm.

The applicant sought various urgent relief, including a certificate of pending litigation and a Mareva injunction, after the respondent breached a court order by refinancing a property without consent, increasing its debt load.

The court dismissed the certificate of pending litigation and Mareva injunction requests, finding the applicant failed to meet the high thresholds.

However, the court granted a preservation order against the property and certain funds, ordered specific disclosure, and allowed the applicant to inspect the property, emphasizing the importance of obeying court orders and protecting potential support and property claims.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, arguing that the parties' three children, who were in his de facto care, were living in cramped conditions in his one-bedroom basement apartment while the applicant mother resided alone in the four-bedroom home.

The motion was deemed urgent due to the children's living situation, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and a recent suicide attempt by one of the children.

The court granted the father exclusive possession, prioritizing the children's best interests, and ordered the father to make periodic payments to the mother to assist with alternative accommodation.

The decision also included a strong admonition against rhetorical excess and irrelevant personal attacks in family law litigation.

The applicant father sought leave to bring an urgent motion for parenting time with his three children, alleging the respondent mother had denied contact since a domestic incident.

The respondent mother opposed, asserting willingness for a week-about arrangement and disputing the father's claims.

The court found the applicant's initial letter misleading and the respondent's letter violated court protocols by exceeding page limits and including privileged information.

The court declined to find present urgency for a motion but scheduled a case conference to assist parties in resolving issues and to determine urgency as an element of case management.

The applicant mother sought to suspend the respondent father's in-person access to their child due to COVID-19 concerns, requesting replacement with Skype contact.

The respondent father sought to reinstate his court-ordered access.

The court found that the mother improperly refused access and failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, clear hardship, or urgency for varying the existing order.

The court emphasized the duty to obey court orders and the maximum contact principle, even during a pandemic.

The father's motion to reinstate access was granted with conditions, and the mother's request to suspend access was denied.

The mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic to suspend the father's shared parenting time with their two younger children, seeking to keep them in her exclusive care.

She argued the children wished to stay with her and expressed anxiety about the father's home and his pandemic precautions.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the mother was using the pandemic to continue her long-standing pattern of undermining his relationship with the children and breaching court orders.

The court found the motion urgent not because of COVID-19 risks, but due to the risk of emotional harm to the children from the mother's unilateral suspension of parenting time.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding no material change in circumstances and ordering the regular shared parenting schedule to continue.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to temporarily suspend the shared parenting arrangement for two of their children due to COVID-19, effectively seeking exclusive care.

The mother had withheld the children from the father in contravention of an existing order.

The court reserved its decision but ordered that the existing parenting order must be obeyed and the children's time with the father must continue pending the release of the decision.

The applicant sought urgent financial relief after the respondent unilaterally removed a substantial sum from a joint line of credit on two occasions, draining it.

The court found the matter met the high test of urgency required during the COVID-19 pandemic, given the significant depletion of assets and dire financial implications for the applicant and children.

The court ordered the immediate return of funds to the line of credit, its freezing, and a non-dissipation order against the respondent.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's trust claim regarding a 46.5-acre property.

The plaintiff alleged that the property, initially transferred to her minor daughter and later sold in two parts to the defendants' father, was held in trust for her.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the plaintiff's lack of detailed supporting evidence, inconsistencies in her claims, and contradiction by documentary evidence and the third party's (the daughter's) testimony.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, concluding that the defendants' narrative, supported by independent documentation and consistent evidence, was credible.

The applicant father, residing in Alberta, sought to confirm a provisional order reducing his child support obligations and arrears for his three children residing in Ontario with the respondent mother.

The father claimed a reduction in income due to cataracts and that the oldest child was no longer a child of the marriage.

The court refused to confirm the provisional order's reduction of arrears, finding the father was intentionally underemployed and had engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to pay support.

The court suspended support for the oldest child pending further evidence of her law school enrollment, but ordered ongoing table support for the two younger children based on the father's imputed income.

The respondent mother in a high-conflict custody dispute moved to add the applicant father's new partner, sister, and mother as collateral respondents to her motion to change.

She sought a restraining order against them, alleging they colluded with the father to alienate the children from her.

The court granted the motion, finding it had jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules and the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court applied the Worrall factors, concluding the collateral respondents were necessary parties and that the exceptional circumstances of the case justified their addition despite the impending trial date.

Following a guardianship trial where success was divided, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of the proceeding and costs of three interlocutory motions.

The court found that while the applicants were more successful than the respondents, their insistence on unworkable care plans and the parties' mutual animosity unduly lengthened the proceeding.

The court denied enhanced costs and costs of the interlocutory motions, awarding the applicants partial indemnity costs fixed at $56,760.72.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary access order to increase his parenting time with the parties' two children, aged 16 and 11.

The mother opposed the motion, citing a history of domestic violence and the children's expressed fears.

Relying on Voice of the Child reports, the court declined to force the 16-year-old to attend access against her will, noting her age and right to withdraw from parental control.

The court also dismissed the father's request to increase access to the 11-year-old, finding that the maximum contact principle was outweighed by the child's best interests and need for security.

In a family law trial, the court determined the parties' date of separation and the respondent's entitlement to spousal support.

The court accepted the applicant's separation date of March 1, 2015, finding it supported by objective factors including the cessation of intimate relations, separate socializing, and the applicant's refusal to allow the respondent to use the matrimonial home for a risky business venture.

The court found the respondent entitled to non-compensatory spousal support starting August 30, 2018, the date he first claimed it.

However, the court imputed an income of $29,100 to the respondent due to intentional underemployment, as he had retired early to pursue an unrealistic career in home rebuilding.

The court reserved judgment on the quantum of spousal support pending further submissions on potential double-dipping and post-retirement income attribution.

The applicant wife sought interim spousal support and a non-dissipation order.

The parties consented to the non-dissipation order.

The court addressed interim spousal support, considering the husband's high income ($2.09 million/year) and the wife's imputed income ($30,000/year) after a 15.5-year relationship.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) principles for high-income earners, noting the SSAG ceiling is not a hard cap.

Considering the non-compensatory nature of the support, the substantial equalization payments already made and anticipated, and the parties' relative budgets, the court ordered the husband to pay $30,000 per month in temporary spousal support, a 50% increase from previous consensual payments.

The issue of retroactive support was deferred to trial.