Melanie Kraft

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.

The respondent husband brought a motion for the partition and sale of a jointly owned property where the applicant wife and children currently reside.

The wife opposed the sale, arguing she wished to purchase the husband's interest but could not do so until equalization was determined.

The court granted the motion, finding that the carrying costs were unsustainable for the family, the wife had taken no concrete steps to purchase the property, and a sale was inevitable.

The net proceeds were ordered to be held in trust pending final resolution of the parties' family law claims.

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.

The applicant husband sought an order to cancel a Designation of Matrimonial Home registered by the respondent wife on a Toronto condominium solely owned by him.

The parties permanently resided in Iran during their marriage and only visited Canada as tourists, staying in temporary rentals rather than the subject property.

The court found that the property was an investment property rented to third-party tenants and was never occupied by the parties as their family residence.

Accordingly, the court declared the property was not a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act and cancelled the designation.

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.

The court considered a motion by the respondent father to retroactively decrease his child support obligation and/or rescind all arrears under a 2010 order.

The father, self-represented, argued that his long-term unemployment and health issues constituted a material change in circumstances.

The mother, though served, did not participate.

The court found a material change in circumstances from 2014 onward, but not for 2010–2014 due to lack of evidence.

The court reduced the arrears to $1,500, to be paid at $50/month, and rescinded the remainder, finding the father unable to pay more.

The court applied the Supreme Court’s Colucci framework and relevant statutory provisions.

The court grants sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child to the applicant, Melis Kocabas, following a history of family violence and the respondent's non-participation.

The court also imputes income to the respondent, Yavuz Polat, for child support purposes, orders retroactive and ongoing support, and issues a restraining order for the safety of the applicant and child.

The decision applies the best interests of the child test, the law on imputation of income, and the principles for granting restraining orders.

On a motion to vary an interim parenting order, the moving party sought a step-up plan leading to equal parenting time for a child under three years old.

The court held that no material change in circumstances was required because the earlier interim order expressly provided for a review of parenting time after a few months.

Applying the best interests of the child analysis under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, with particular attention to stability, the child's developmental needs, the parties' conflict, family violence concerns, and the child's adjustment to transitions, the court declined to order equal time-sharing.

The court nevertheless varied the schedule modestly by replacing the mid-week overnight with a Monday overnight in one week and adding Wednesday dinner visits in both weeks so the child would not go long stretches without seeing either parent.

The applicant, Lily Ror, sought to be removed as a director of Rovimat Group Inc. effective August 11, 2019, under the oppression remedy provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court found that the conduct of the respondent, Rolando Pires, in dissolving and reviving the corporation without her knowledge, diluting her shareholding, and exposing her to personal liability, amounted to unfair prejudice and disregard of her interests as a director.

The court ordered her removal as director effective the requested date and awarded her costs.

This costs decision follows a lengthy family law trial between Nathan Zane Nugent and Melanie Rebecca Nugent, addressing retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, property division, and related issues.

The court found the wife was entirely successful and awarded her $200,000 in costs, citing the husband’s repeated non-compliance with court orders, failure to provide disclosure, and unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings.

The court reviewed the legislative and case law framework for costs, the role of offers to settle, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

The order is enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This uncontested trial concerns the applicant mother’s request for sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, R.S., as well as related orders regarding travel, documentation, and name change, in the absence of participation by the respondent father.

The court reviews the service history, the father’s lack of response, and the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, ultimately granting all requested orders to the mother.

This decision addresses competing motions for temporary parenting time and decision-making responsibility between separated parents.

The applicant mother sought primary residence and supervised parenting for the father, while the father sought to maintain the status quo of equal time-sharing.

The court reviewed the evidence, including allegations of family violence, the children’s adjustment, and the parties’ conduct, and ultimately ordered a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule, declined to order supervision, and directed the parties to arrange therapy for the child L1.

The court also excluded surreptitious recordings and improper reply affidavits.