Melanie A. Larock

The Applicant and Respondent Imran Khan, separated spouses, were in litigation regarding the sale of a beneficially owned property titled in the names of Imran's parents (Zarinataj and Ishaq Khan).

The Respondents brought a motion to compel the sale of the property at an accepted offer price, which the Applicant opposed, arguing the price was too low.

The court addressed the urgency of the motion, the admissibility of a "without prejudice" settlement letter, and whether the motion should be heard despite Imran Khan's arrears in support payments.

The court found the matter urgent due to lost opportunity and ongoing expenses, ruled the settlement letter inadmissible due to settlement privilege, and allowed the motion to proceed despite arrears, citing the Applicant's dilatory conduct and the interests of the other Respondents.

The court ordered the property to be sold at the accepted offer, with a condition allowing the Applicant to litigate the reasonableness of the sale price at trial, and directed that any support arrears be paid from Imran Khan's share of the proceeds.

The court also recommended the appointment of a case management judge due to the contentious and complex nature of the case.

The applicant sought the release of $2,750,000 from her share of the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent brought a cross-motion, agreeing to release $500,000 to the applicant and $100,000 to himself, but sought to impose a condition that a further $2,000,000 be released to the applicant only upon her entering into an agreement to purchase a home in Toronto, citing concerns about her financial management and the children's future housing.

The court found no legal basis to impose such conditions on the applicant's share of property proceeds, distinguishing it from child support cases where such interference is rare and only in exceptional circumstances.

The court granted the applicant's motion for the release of funds without preconditions and denied the respondent's cross-motion.

The respondent brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the applicant in a family law proceeding, prior to the applicant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's corollary claims for spousal and child support, which were based on a separation agreement.

The applicant argued that the disclosure motion constituted an abuse of process and was premature.

The court found no abuse of process, but limited the scope of the disclosure.

It ordered the applicant to produce specific financial documents related to his financial worth and income as of the date of the separation agreement (June 25, 2015), deferring requests for post-agreement disclosure until the summary judgment motion on the agreement's validity is determined.

The respondent, Michael Kitt, brought a motion to compel the applicant, Amy Benson, to answer four questions refused during questioning and to produce related documents.

The questions pertained to a reporting letter from Benson's former solicitor, the mediator's file from a prior mediation, Benson's therapist's file, and a private investigator's file.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the solicitor's reporting letter was protected by solicitor-client privilege and res judicata, the mediator's file by settlement privilege and contractual confidentiality, the therapist's file by patient-therapist privilege (applying the Wigmore test due to marginal relevance and high intrusiveness), and the private investigator's file was irrelevant to the issues in dispute.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning parenting arrangements for two children.

The trial resulted in divided success: the mother obtained sole custody with decision-making authority on major issues, while the father obtained significantly expanded access beyond what he had previously enjoyed and successfully prevented the mother from changing the children's names or obtaining consent waivers for government documentation and international travel.

The court found both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour during the proceedings.

The father sought costs of $10,000 while the mother sought no costs award.

The court fixed costs at $4,500 in favour of the father, payable at $500 per month commencing December 1, 2018.

A trial concerning parenting arrangements for two children following the separation of the parties.

The mother sought sole custody with discretionary access for the father and the ability to change the children's surnames.

The father sought modified joint custody with expanded access and overnight visits during the school week.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the previous consent order and awarded sole custody to the mother while significantly expanding the father's access and involvement in the children's lives.

The court prohibited the mother from changing the children's surnames, finding the request was motivated by improper purposes.

The court considered costs for motions where both parties had partial success on disclosure issues.

The Applicant sought the Respondent's medical records, and the Respondent sought the Applicant's financial documents.

Both parties' conduct was deemed unreasonable, leading to the unnecessary hearing of the motions.

The Applicant's offers to settle did not meet the requirements for enhanced costs.

Given the divided success and unreasonable behaviour of both parties, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful on parenting and support issues, the applicant sought costs.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the applicant's offers were reasonable and closer to the final result, while the respondent's position on support was untenable.

Despite divided success on the specific parenting schedule, the applicant's overall success was proportionally greater.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $143,763.78, representing a middle ground between partial and full indemnity, and ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding balance of the section 30 assessor's fees.

The parties separated after 11 years of marriage and disputed custody, access, and support for their 11-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody, alleging the father was controlling, undermined her parenting, and alienated the child.

The father sought joint custody and a continuation of the shared parenting schedule.

The court adopted the section 30 assessor's recommendation to grant the mother sole custody due to the parents' inability to communicate effectively and the father's contemptuous behaviour.

A week-about shared parenting schedule was ordered to minimize transitions and conflict.

The court imputed income to the retired father based on his capital assets and dismissed his claim for spousal support, ordering no child support due to the parties' similar incomes.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, interim spousal support, and an order striking the respondent's pleadings for failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court ordered that the respondent's pleadings regarding support be struck if he fails to provide the outstanding corporate financial statements and tax returns by a specified date.

The court dismissed the claim for interim spousal support, finding insufficient evidence for a compensatory claim and noting that the applicant had earned a high income post-separation, negating a non-compensatory claim three years post-separation.

The court imputed an income of $51,000 to the applicant based on a vocational assessment and increased the respondent's child support obligation to $800 per month for their shared custody arrangement, along with a proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

Following a motion to change child support, the court determined costs under Family Rule 24 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant father was substantially successful in obtaining an order reducing child support to nil and fixing arrears payable by instalments.

Although the respondent mother argued she lacked the ability to pay costs, the court found that she ignored the litigation process and failed to engage with settlement opportunities.

The court held that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs and that the amount sought represented only a small portion of the applicant’s actual legal expenses.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the applicant, with child support arrears permitted to be set off against that amount.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order to reduce child support based on a material change in circumstances arising from serious health issues and loss of employment resulting in disability income.

The respondent mother filed responding materials but did not attend the hearing.

The court accepted evidence that the father’s income had declined from approximately $60,000 at the time of the original order to $9,600 annually in long-term disability benefits.

The court declined to average the father’s income under s. 17 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and instead relied on actual line 150 income under s. 16.

Child support was reduced to zero effective January 1, 2014, and arrears for prior years were fixed at $995.98 payable in monthly instalments.