Melanie Kraft

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the applicant moved to amend her pleadings to add tort claims for intimate partner violence, assault, battery, abuse of process, and income loss shortly before trial.

She also sought to withdraw deemed admissions resulting from her failure to respond to a Request to Admit while self-represented.

The court allowed the amendments for IPV, assault, and battery, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the respondent, but denied the late economic tort claims as they would derail the peremptory trial.

The court also permitted the withdrawal of the deemed admissions, finding the default was an honest mistake based on a misunderstanding of a Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form, and ordered further questioning.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking an order requiring the applicant husband to repay $228,099 he withdrew from their joint line of credit, alleging he breached a November 2023 agreement between counsel.

She also sought a broader preservation order over all of his assets to secure her equalization and support claims, as well as potential liability in a civil action brought by her parents.

The court found that a binding agreement existed prohibiting the husband from accessing the joint line of credit and ordered him to repay the funds with interest.

However, the court dismissed the request for a broader preservation order, finding that the equity in the matrimonial home and the repayment of the line of credit provided sufficient security for the wife's claims.

In a family law motion arising from a final child support order made after an uncontested trial, the responding party sought to stay the payor's Motion to Change because of substantial arrears and ongoing non-compliance.

The court declined to impose a stay on the issues relating to ongoing child support, holding that there was a credible basis for a post-order material change in the children's living arrangements and that fairness required a determination on the merits.

The court also permitted a rule 25(19)(a) fraud-based challenge to be heard within the Motion to Change proceeding, adopting a flexible approach under the Family Law Rules.

Although the moving party did not fit neatly within the enumerated grounds for security for costs, the court ordered proportionate security of $30,000 in light of the procedural history, unpaid financial obligations, and continuing litigation risk.

The applicant brought a motion for vacant possession and sole carriage of the sale of a property she solely owned, where the respondent had been residing since their separation.

The respondent opposed the motion, asserting constructive trust and joint family venture claims.

The court granted the motion, finding that the respondent's equitable claims did not prevent the sale, as his interests could be protected by holding the net proceeds in trust.

The respondent was ordered to vacate the property within 45 days, and the applicant was granted sole carriage of the sale due to the respondent's uncooperative conduct.

The applicant wife brought a motion for a preservation order under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act, seeking to freeze the respondent husband's bank accounts or require him to pay $50,000 into court.

The wife alleged the husband dissipated assets by transferring $95,000 and real property worth $400,000 to his father in Iran to defeat her equalization claims.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, risk of irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the wife.

The court ordered the husband to pay $50,000 into court and registered a charge on the transferred property.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking a declaration that the respondent husband breached a prior court endorsement, an Automatic Order, and Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules regarding financial disclosure.

The court found the husband in breach of the Automatic Order for failing to provide complete tax and disability income documentation, and noted a prior breach of the endorsement regarding his attendance at questioning.

The court ordered the husband to comply with the Automatic Order and to provide comprehensive responses and supporting documents to the wife's Request for Information, particularly concerning his expenses, bank statements, and unilateral withdrawals from a joint line of credit.

The respondent brought an uncontested Motion to Change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation and rescind over $216,000 in accumulated arrears.

The original 2002 order required support until three months after the applicant completed an educational program, but the respondent failed to pay voluntarily, leading to extensive garnishment by the Family Responsibility Office starting in 2012.

The court found that the respondent had significantly overpaid his total time-limited support obligation by mid-2017 and lacked the financial means to pay the remaining arrears.

The motion was granted, the arrears were rescinded in their entirety, and the ongoing support obligation was terminated.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion within an appeal of a publication ban order, seeking a court order to compel the Toronto Police Service to investigate the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and other individuals for alleged child trafficking and fraud.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that police do not owe a private or public duty to investigate criminal complaints and their discretion cannot be fettered by a court order of mandamus.

The applicant father brought a motion for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and an investment property.

The respondent mother opposed the sale, arguing it would cause hardship and disrupt the child's sleep patterns.

The court found the mother failed to demonstrate malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the father to defeat his prima facie right to partition and sale.

The court ordered both properties to be listed for sale, with a $70,000 holdback from each party's share of the matrimonial home proceeds to secure claims for post-separation adjustments, occupation rent, and equalization.

The mother wrongfully retained the parties' two young children in Ontario after a visit from their habitual residence in Texas.

The father sought their return under the Hague Convention.

The mother opposed the return, alleging a history of severe family violence, coercive control, and sexual abuse by the father.

The court found that the father's admitted history of physical and psychological abuse against the mother constituted a grave risk of harm to the children under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

The court dismissed the father's application for return, assumed jurisdiction over parenting issues, and ordered the children to remain in Ontario.

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.

The appellant father appealed an order staying his motion to change a 2006 child support order until he paid $10,000 in security for costs and $4,000 in outstanding costs.

The father, who had moved to North Macedonia and accumulated over $118,000 in arrears, argued the order extinguished his claims and ignored his impecuniosity.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied Rule 24(20) of the Family Law Rules and the frameworks from Colucci and D.B.S. The court held there was no palpable and overriding error in finding the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by ignoring his support obligations for 18 years and relocating without paying support.

The parties separated after a 10-year marriage.

The father sought primary residence of their 8-year-old child, but the parties consented to a shared parenting schedule with the child residing primarily with the mother.

The court awarded the mother sole decision-making responsibility for education, health, and extra-curricular activities due to the father's history of abusive communication and inability to co-parent effectively, while ordering joint decision-making for religion.

The mother was permitted to travel to Pakistan with the child for up to two weeks annually.

The court imputed minimum wage income to the mother for 2023-2025 and ordered the father to pay retroactive child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support.

The mother was ordered to pay the father an equalization payment of $43,369.74, primarily based on the valuation of land she owned in Pakistan.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

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.