Melanie Kraft

The moving party sought a stay of a 2019 interim without prejudice spousal support order and a direction that the Family Responsibility Office refrain from reporting arrears to credit bureaus.

The moving party retired in 2021 after being laid off, reducing his annual income from over $280,000 to approximately $55,000, while the support obligation of $5,700 per month remained in force.

The court applied the four-part test from Clark v. Vanderhoeven and found the moving party established a strong prima facie case for variation, clear hardship, urgency, and clean hands.

The motion was granted and the support order and support deduction order were stayed pending final determination of spousal support issues.

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 applicant mother sought temporary sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the parties' 9-year-old daughter, with the respondent father having parenting time on Wednesdays and Sundays.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to maintain primary residence with himself, with the mother having alternate weekend and mid-week visits.

The court found that the mother's choice of primary residence was reasonable and in the child's best interests.

The court determined that the respondent had engaged in self-help tactics, withheld parenting time from the mother, exposed the child to family violence through denigration of the mother, and demonstrated poor judgment and emotional dysregulation.

The court granted the mother primary residence with a temporary parenting schedule for the father of Wednesdays after school to 8:00 p.m. and alternating Fridays after school to Sundays at 6:00 p.m.

The respondent brought a motion seeking reunification therapy for the children with a family therapist, a right of first refusal for pick-up and drop-off of children at activities, an order to use Our Family Wizard for communication, and an updated parenting assessment within six months.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought implementation of the recommendations from a prior section 30 parenting assessment.

The court dismissed the motion for reunification therapy, finding it contrary to the children's best interests given their opposition and the respondent's failure to meet clinical goals.

The court implemented the prior assessment recommendations as a temporary order and ordered family therapy for the children alone before any parental involvement.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and prospective child support from the respondent father for their six-year-old daughter with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The father had been paying $686 per month since June 2020 on a temporary without prejudice basis, despite significant income increases.

The court determined that retroactive child support was appropriate from the date of effective notice (December 11, 2019) and calculated arrears of $10,157 in table support plus $1,272.02 in section 7 expenses, payable over 24 months.

Prospective child support was set at $789 per month based on the father's adjusted income of $88,545.24 (after deducting union dues), with the father paying 71.25% of section 7 expenses.

The father's request for a reduction based on travel costs to exercise parenting time was denied as he failed to complete the required undue hardship analysis, though he was permitted to bring such a claim in the future.

The respondent sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home located in Toronto and a time-sharing arrangement for a cottage property in McKellar, Ontario.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought alternative relief.

The court granted the respondent exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding that the applicant's conduct—including unauthorized access to privileged documents, placement of tracking devices, and attempts to access email accounts—constituted psychological abuse rendering continued cohabitation impractical.

The court declined to determine whether the cottage property constituted a matrimonial home, as this required findings of credibility better suited to trial.

Instead, the court granted the respondent limited use of the cottage for two one-week periods annually, while granting the applicant exclusive use of both the main cottage and secondary rental cottage.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a declaratory order that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to make parenting orders regarding two children.

The father argued that the children would suffer serious harm if returned to Iran due to the Israel-Iran conflict and other factors.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing that the children's habitual residence is Iran and that Iran has jurisdiction over parenting matters.

The court found that the children would not suffer serious harm if returned to Iran on a balance of probabilities and declined Ontario's jurisdiction, dismissing the father's motion.

The respondent brought a motion for partition and sale of an investment property held as tenants in common (90% respondent, 10% applicant).

The applicant sought dismissal of the motion pending determination of his resulting trust and unjust enrichment claims regarding beneficial ownership.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding it premature in the absence of completed financial disclosure and net family property statements.

The court held that ownership issues must be determined before partition and sale can be ordered, and that the respondent's financial hardship did not justify immediate sale when carrying costs were offset by rental income.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties’ two children to Montreal on a temporary basis prior to trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the best interests of the children required maintaining stability and continuity in Toronto until a full trial could be held, especially given the need for reunification therapy and a pending parenting assessment.

The court also addressed several procedural motions, including the admissibility of affidavits, hearsay, and surreptitious recordings.

The court addresses a high-conflict family law dispute between former spouses regarding the division of proceeds from the sale of their matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and costs.

The respondent repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders, resulting in significant delays and additional costs for the applicant.

The court ultimately orders that neither party owes the other an equalization payment, dismisses the applicant's claim for an unequal division of property, but grants her reimbursement for post-separation expenses, writs, and costs, all payable from the respondent's share of the sale proceeds.

This decision resolves a school placement dispute between separated parents for the 2025/2026 academic year.

The father sought to have the children attend schools in his catchment area, while the mother sought different placements and temporary sole decision-making over education.

The court considered the best interests of each child, their school history, and the stability of their placements.

The court ordered that E. remain at Albert Campbell C.I., I. apply to attend Albert Campbell C.I. (with a fallback to West Hill C.I. if not accepted), and M. attend Grey Owl Junior Public School.

The mother was ordered to pay the father $6,000 in costs.

The decision concerns a motion by Cornel Brenninkmeyer to vary a temporary consent order regarding uncharacterized support payments to Susan (Sam) Makepeace.

The court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances, hardship, urgency, and whether the moving party came to court with clean hands.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a reduction in support payments, but did not find clear hardship.

The order allows for further reduction if the trial is further delayed.

This decision concerns an uncontested family law trial in which the applicant, Tirhas Yowhannes, sought sole decision-making responsibility for her two children, the right to travel and obtain government-issued documentation for them without the respondent’s consent, child support based on imputed income, and a divorce.

The court granted all relief sought, finding it in the children’s best interests given the respondent’s absence from their lives and failure to provide support or disclosure.

The court also ordered retroactive and ongoing child support based on minimum wage.

This decision concerns an uncontested family law application in which the applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, child support, and permission to travel and renew documentation for the child without the father's consent.

The court found in favour of the mother on all substantive issues, imputing income to the father for child support purposes, awarding retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissing the spousal support claim without prejudice due to lack of evidence.

The court also permitted the mother to travel with the child and renew government documentation without the father's consent, given the father's lack of involvement and history of family violence.

This decision addresses a 4.5-day uncontested trial regarding retroactive and prospective child support, special expenses, and related relief for the parties' 17-year-old son.

The court struck the applicant's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders and deadlines, allowing her to participate only on parenting and financial statement issues.

The court found the applicant underemployed, imputed income to her, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as a proportional share of special expenses.

The court also addressed security for child support via life insurance and travel consent for the child.

This decision resolves cross-motions to change a 2016 Divorce Order regarding child and spousal support, and the sharing of section 7 expenses for two children after one left for university.

The court addresses the treatment of non-recurring income for support purposes, the netting down of retroactive spousal support, and the imputation of income to the recipient.

The court finds that certain non-recurring employment benefits should be excluded from the payor’s income, retroactive spousal support should be netted down, and imputes income to the recipient.

The court sets out detailed calculations for arrears, overpayments, and the parties’ respective shares of section 7 expenses, and makes orders for ongoing support and expense sharing.

The applicant, Paul Mitchell, sought an order for full carriage of the sale of the parties’ jointly owned matrimonial home and for the respondent, Susan Craddock, to vacate the property by a specified date.

The court reviewed the parties’ history, including previous orders for sale and the respondent’s repeated non-compliance.

The court granted Mr. Mitchell full carriage of the sale, dispensed with Ms. Craddock’s consent and signature, and ordered her to vacate the home by June 13, 2025, enforceable by the Sheriff if necessary.

The respondent father sought to change the primary residence of the parties’ 14-year-old son, M., from Toronto with the mother to Hamilton with the father, so M. could attend Bishop Tonnos Secondary School and play football.

The mother opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and that it was not in M.’s best interests.

The court found a material change in circumstances but declined to change M.’s primary residence, citing concerns about the father’s pattern of family violence and inability to support M.’s relationship with the mother.

The court did, however, adjust the parenting schedule to allow M. more time with the father, especially during the summer and on weekends, to support his football interests.

This decision addresses a motion by Mr. Diab for leave to issue a writ of possession against Ms. Poka to enforce prior court orders requiring her to vacate the matrimonial home.

The court reviews the history of orders regarding the sale and possession of the home, the parties' compliance, and the need for further orders to ensure the closing of the sale.

The court finds Ms. Poka is not currently in breach of the sale and vacate orders but makes further orders to ensure compliance and the successful closing of the sale, including surrender of keys, removal of belongings, and financial disclosure.