Meghan Melito

The Respondent, Andrew Lambden, brought a motion for an interim order requiring the Applicant, Yessica Pamela Cevallos, to pay $30,000 as security for costs of the litigation.

The court found that the Applicant habitually resides outside Ontario and has no assets in Ontario, satisfying the preliminary onus under Rule 24(13)(a) of the Family Law Rules.

The court expressed serious reservations about the merits of the Applicant's spousal support claim, specifically regarding whether the parties continuously cohabited in a conjugal relationship for the statutory three-year period, citing significant interruptions in their cohabitation and the nature of their financial arrangements.

The court also noted the Applicant's inconsistent financial disclosure and inappropriate threatening statements made to the Respondent.

Despite the Applicant's submission that the order would prevent her from continuing the proceeding, the court found she had the ability to raise funds.

The motion for security for costs was granted in the amount of $20,000.

The Applicant sought an order for disclosure from and leave to question non-parties (the Respondent's son and accountant) regarding the Respondent's assets and income, particularly concerning a family trust (Simcoe Group Trust) which the Applicant suspected was used to shield wealth and decrease Net Family Property (NFP).

The Applicant argued this information was crucial for equalization and support issues and that the Respondent had been vague in his own disclosure.

The Respondent and non-parties opposed, asserting that substantial disclosure had already been provided.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion for non-party disclosure and questioning, finding that the Applicant had not met the objective test under Family Law Rules 19(11) and 20(5), which requires more than suspicion and emphasizes proportionality, privacy interests of non-parties, and avoiding fishing expeditions.

The court also dismissed the Applicant's request to remove the matter from the trial sittings, stressing the need for the long-standing family litigation to proceed to trial for finality.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the respondent successfully had an Omani divorce recognized.

The respondent sought over $36,000 in costs, including expert disbursements.

The court rejected the respondent's claim of beating an offer to settle, finding the offer non-severable.

The court also expressed concerns about the utility and reasonableness of expert evidence.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive, payable by the applicant, but payment was deferred until the outcome of the costs of the upcoming trial, allowing for potential set-off.

The responding party commenced family law proceedings in Ontario.

The moving party subsequently obtained a religious divorce in Oman, which was later formalized and upheld by the Omani courts.

The responding party participated in the Omani proceedings, contesting jurisdiction and the merits of the divorce, and seeking custody.

The moving party brought a motion in Ontario to recognize the Omani divorce.

The court granted the motion, finding that the responding party had voluntarily attorned to the jurisdiction of the Omani courts by participating on the merits and seeking substantive relief, precluding her from challenging the foreign court's jurisdiction in Ontario.

The parties, separated parents of two children, brought cross-motions for directions regarding which schools their children should attend for the 2021/2022 academic year.

The applicant sought to maintain the parties' pre-separation education plan, which involved the older child attending a 50/50 French Immersion program at a school in Caledon and the younger child attending a full French school in Orangeville for kindergarten.

The respondent, who had unilaterally enrolled the children in a different school in Orangeville after purchasing a home there, sought to have both children attend the new school.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as stability, the parents' ability to support the children's education, and the children's community connections.

The court found that maintaining the pre-separation education plan was in the children's best interests and ordered the children to attend the schools proposed by the applicant.

The Father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' four-year-old daughter to Arizona, her habitual residence, after the Mother unilaterally removed her to Ontario.

The Mother sought a declaration that Ontario had jurisdiction and argued that the Hague application was commenced more than one year after the wrongful removal, and that the child was settled in Ontario.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Arizona, the removal was wrongful, and the Father did not consent or acquiesce.

The court determined that the Hague proceedings were commenced within one year of the removal.

Even if not, the court found the child was not sufficiently settled in Ontario to dismiss the application, emphasizing the Convention's objectives of deterrence and rapid return, especially for a young child whose environment is primarily family-centric.

The court ordered the child's return to Arizona.