Melanie Kraft

The applicant mother sought a temporary variation of a final parenting order concerning a 10-year-old child, M., aiming to reduce the father's parenting time and gain sole decision-making authority, based on a parenting coordinator's report.

The respondent father opposed the temporary changes and brought a cross-motion for an updated s.30 parenting assessment.

The court dismissed the mother's temporary motion, finding she did not meet the stringent onus required to demonstrate immediate irreparable harm to the child, noting the conflicted record.

The court also dismissed the father's cross-motion for an updated assessment, deeming it unnecessary and a cause of undue delay.

The mother's main Motion to Change was expedited for a two-day trial.

The applicant sought release of her share of proceeds from a jointly-owned property to close a condominium purchase and pay legal fees.

The primary respondent sought preservation of these funds as security for equalization claims.

A third-party respondent sought security for costs against the applicant for a trust claim.

The court ordered a partial release of funds for the condominium closing, with the remaining proceeds and a portion of the condominium's future sale proceeds to be held in trust as security for the primary respondent's equalization claims and the third-party respondent's potential costs.

The court found the trust claim against the third-party was not frivolous enough to warrant security for costs in the amount sought, but ordered a smaller amount to be held as security from the condo sale.

A wife brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, permission to remove her special needs horses and donkey, partition and sale of the home, and return of her laptops, following separation and criminal charges preventing her from accessing the home.

The husband cross-moved for exclusive possession.

The court granted the husband temporary exclusive possession until January 31, 2024, after which the wife would have exclusive possession until the property's sale.

The court ordered the husband to facilitate proper care for the animals by contacting their regular veterinarian and ensuring training for caregivers.

The husband was also ordered to return the wife's laptops and pay costs for breaching a prior consent order.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking a temporary reversal of primary residence and a 120-day no-contact period between the child and the respondent mother due to severe parental alienation.

The mother had repeatedly thwarted the father's parenting time, made unsubstantiated allegations of physical and sexual abuse, and sabotaged reunification therapy.

The court found that the mother's alienating behaviour constituted family violence and placed the child at risk of emotional harm.

Applying the stringent test for temporary variation of a final order, the court granted the father's motion, reversing primary residence to the father and ordering a 120-day blackout period for the mother to allow the father and child to participate in a reunification program.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother for allegedly breaching a court order regarding extracurricular activities for their child.

The father claimed the mother refused to facilitate the child's participation in "Select Hockey" during her parenting time.

The court found that the order was not unequivocally breached, as there was ambiguity regarding the interplay between two prior orders (2017 Consent and 2020 Nakonechny order) concerning extracurricular activities and the role of a Parenting Coordinator.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding no deliberate and willful breach beyond a reasonable doubt, and stated it would have exercised its discretion to decline a contempt finding due to potential injustice and the father's true objective being enforcement rather than contempt.

The court ordered an urgent case conference and the immediate appointment of a Parenting Coordinator.

The applicant sought to enforce a separation agreement, including child and spousal support arrears, and to impute income to the respondent for intentional underemployment.

The respondent sought to terminate spousal support and pay reduced child support.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed, imputed income to him, ordered payment of significant child and spousal support arrears, and s. 7 expense arrears.

The respondent's motion to terminate spousal support was dismissed, but ongoing spousal support was temporarily set at zero due to the priority of child support, with the issue to be determined at trial.

The court also addressed life insurance obligations and the division of RESP funds and Marant shares.

This motion addresses a dispute between unmarried parents regarding parenting time, a s.30 parenting assessment, and s.7 special expenses for their two children, one of whom has significant special needs (autism, intellectual disability, ADHD).

The applicant father sought to increase his parenting time, obtain a s.30 assessment, and establish ancillary parenting orders.

The respondent mother opposed these changes and sought reimbursement for past s.7 expenses and prepayment for future ones.

The court found a material change in circumstances, increased the father's temporary parenting time, ordered a s.30 assessment (to be paid by the father), and granted several ancillary parenting orders.

The court also ordered reconciliation of past s.7 expenses, disallowing some of the mother's claims, and dismissed her request for prepayment of future s.7 expenses, establishing a consent-based mechanism instead.

This decision addresses the penalty phase of a contempt motion where the respondent, Hang Chen, was found in contempt of court for persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders, including financial disclosure, support payments, equalization payments, and costs orders.

The applicant, Yuan Xiang Ding, sought a $10,000 penalty and full indemnity costs.

The court, applying Rule 31 of the Family Law Rules and considering aggravating factors such as flagrant and wilful breaches and bad faith conduct, imposed the requested $10,000 penalty and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of $10,324.75, both enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant, Fiona Bagust-Homes, brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, seeking to impute an annual income of $200,000 to the respondent, Gregory Devine, based on his historical earnings.

The respondent, currently unemployed, argued the motion was premature, proposed a lower imputed income of $75,000, and contended the applicant had no need for support due to her received capital.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed and imputed an income of $200,000.

It ordered temporary child support based on a set-off of table amounts and temporary spousal support at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also directed that support payments be made from the respondent's held capital and ordered him to maintain a life insurance policy as security.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant wife sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence for the children, specific parenting time arrangements, authority for travel and documentation, child support (retroactive and ongoing), and costs.

The respondent husband, though not filing responding pleadings, made submissions.

The court granted the wife sole decision-making, primary residence for the three younger children, and authority for travel and documentation.

It imputed income to the husband for child support purposes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, and awarded costs to the wife due to the husband's blameworthy conduct and non-participation in the proceedings.

The applicant wife sought various orders in an uncontested trial, including sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence for the children, child support (retroactive and ongoing) based on imputed income for the respondent husband, lump sum spousal support, equalization of net family property, and a restraining order against the husband due to a history of family violence.

The husband evaded service and did not participate in the proceedings.

The court granted all of the wife's requested orders, imputing income to the husband, ordering retroactive and ongoing child support, lump sum spousal support, an equalization payment, and a restraining order, finding it to be in the children's best interests and due to the husband's blameworthy conduct and financial abandonment.

The parties separated after an altercation that led to criminal charges against the respondent.

The central issue at trial was determining which party took approximately $405,000 in cash and precious metals from safes in the matrimonial apartment.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the applicant took the assets.

The court calculated the equalization payment and post-separation adjustments, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $233,363.02.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissed the respondent's claim for spousal support.

The respondent, Abigail Ruth Pollock, brought a motion to incorporate and enforce paragraph 60 of a final arbitration award (the "Kleinman Award").

The applicant, Eli Tenenbaum, opposed the motion, arguing the award was appealable and did not consider the children's best interests.

The court found that the Kleinman Award met the mandatory conditions for enforcement under the Family Law Act, noting that the time for appeal had elapsed and Eli's claims of attempting to appeal were unsubstantiated.

The court emphasized that the enforcement proceeding is not an opportunity to alter the arbitration award.

The motion to incorporate the award was granted, and the respondent was found entitled to costs.

This endorsement addresses a Rule 14B motion brought by the respondent to correct mathematical errors in a prior uncontested trial judgment regarding equalization payments and to revisit the costs award.

The court identified and corrected several inadvertent mathematical and typographical errors in the calculation of the parties' net family property and date of marriage deductions, which resulted in a revised equalization payment.

The court also reconsidered the costs award, finding that the initial fixed sum was based on incomplete information regarding the respondent's legal dockets.

Consequently, the costs awarded to the respondent were increased.

The endorsement further provides directions for the proportionate payment of outstanding professional fees and shortfalls from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home and cottage, given insufficient funds.

In an uncontested family law trial following the applicant wife's bankruptcy, the court determined the equalization of net family properties.

The respondent husband claimed an equalization payment of over $3.5 million, while the wife's Trustee in Bankruptcy calculated the payment at $487,000.

The court resolved disputes over the valuation of the matrimonial home, corporate interests, bank accounts, and tax liabilities, ultimately ordering the wife to pay an equalization payment of $497,944.02.

The husband's claims for post-separation adjustments and spousal support were dismissed, the latter without prejudice due to insufficient evidence.

This is a costs endorsement following a 19-day family law trial concerning maternal grandparents' (IF and BOF) contact with their severely disabled granddaughter (E.), access to her medical information, and a permanent restraining order against them in relation to E.'s father (AN) and his family.

BF, E.'s mother, was absent, being imprisoned for attempted murder.

AN, E.'s father, sought costs on a full indemnity basis against IF and BOF.

The court found AN largely successful, noting IF's conduct amounted to "bad faith" and BOF's conduct was "unreasonable." Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded AN partial recovery costs for trial-related expenses, explicitly excluding costs from prior steps where no order was made.

Despite the grandparents' financial disadvantage, the court ordered IF and BOF to pay a total of $13,564 in costs, with IF paying 80% and BOF paying 20%, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant sought an immediate sale of the matrimonial home and release of half the net proceeds.

The respondent initially opposed the sale but later agreed to it, disputing only the terms of staging/repairs and the release of proceeds, arguing for a smaller initial release and the remainder held in trust as security for his equalization and unjust enrichment claims.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home on the applicant's proposed terms, including following real estate agent advice on staging/repairs, with costs paid from proceeds.

The court also ordered 50% of the net proceeds to be released to the applicant and the balance held in trust, finding the respondent had not established a prima facie unjust enrichment claim or met the onus for a preservation order for the full amount.

The moving party's counsel brought an uncontested motion to have the moving party declared a 'special party' under the Family Law Rules and to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) as his litigation guardian.

Medical and capacity assessments demonstrated that the moving party suffered from severe cognitive impairments and was incapable of instructing counsel.

The court found the moving party to be a special party and, noting the absence of any other appropriate representative, appointed the OPGT to represent him in the ongoing family law proceedings.

The respondent sought costs of $13,735.43 on a full recovery basis following a motion regarding the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The court found divided success on the motion, as the respondent succeeded on three of five issues but failed to have the applicant's pleadings struck immediately or the daily penalty increased.

Although the respondent beat her offer to settle, the court discounted her costs due to her failure to comply with the Practice Direction regarding the length of motion materials and improperly scheduling a long motion as a short motion.

Costs were fixed at $8,250 payable by the applicant.

This case involved an uncontested trial in writing concerning a divorce, parenting, child support, spousal support, and property division.

The applicant sought various orders, including sole decision-making and primary residence for the children, and prospective and retroactive child and spousal support.

The respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

The court granted the divorce, parenting orders, and child support, imputing income to the non-participating respondent and ordering significant retroactive arrears.

Spousal support entitlement was established, but no order was made due to the priority of child support, with leave for the applicant to re-apply later.

Property equalization related to a pension was denied due to insufficient evidence.