Meysa Maleki

The applicant wife brought an urgent without-notice motion for a restraining order under s. 46 of the Family Law Act against the respondent husband, who had been accused of running a Ponzi-type scheme and whose conduct since separation included a barrage of threatening emails and text messages demanding money.

The court found that while the applicant subjectively feared for her safety, the evidence did not objectively establish reasonable grounds to conclude her safety was at risk, and declined to grant the restraining order.

However, the court granted a non-contact order under s. 47.1 of the FLA, prohibiting the respondent from contacting the applicant except through counsel and from coming within 200 metres of the former matrimonial home, the applicant's workplace, and her mother's home, for a period of 14 days.

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, Seyedali Salar, sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession in the interim.

The respondent, Mahnaz Salari, did not object to the sale but requested $2 million to purchase a new home, interim spousal support, and exclusive possession.

The court found that spousal support was not properly before it on this motion and granted the applicant’s motion in part, allowing the sale of the home, granting exclusive possession to the applicant in 45 days, and ordering that the proceeds be held in trust.

The respondent was awarded a $30,000 uncharacterized payment.

The decision reviews the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act and the Family Law Rules, and applies recent case law on the sale and possession of matrimonial homes.

The applicant, Panagiotis Korogonas, sought to vary a temporary, without prejudice child support order (the "Shore Order") so that either the respondent, Samantha Iorio, would pay him child support or neither party would pay.

The court applied the test from Gilkinson v. Nichols, 2023 ONSC 1504, and found that the applicant had not established a prima facie case for a material change in circumstances or that the current arrangement was incongruous or absurd.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

The applicant father moved under Rule 1(8) for a punitive order based on the respondent mother's failure to pay a consent costs order arising from an earlier jurisdiction motion in a family relocation dispute.

Applying the three-step framework for Rule 1(8) relief, the court found a triggering event because the costs order remained unpaid beyond the agreed deadline, but accepted the respondent's evidence that her non-payment was caused by temporary loss of income, efforts to obtain financing, and concrete steps to satisfy the award.

The court held that the respondent's conduct was not egregious, that there was no substantial history of non-compliance with court orders, and that a daily fine would be disproportionate, particularly given the child's circumstances.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to renewal if the costs order remained outstanding, with post-judgment interest left as the adequate present remedy.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that dismissed his claim to set aside a separation agreement.

He argued that he was misled regarding the valuation of the matrimonial home during negotiations.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no deliberate misrepresentation and that the appellant had chosen not to obtain his own valuation to save time and money.

The appeal, along with a request for leave to appeal the costs order, was dismissed.

The Applicant sought to continue a preservation order against the Respondent's property sale proceeds and for interim disbursements.

The Respondent sought to lift the preservation order.

The court continued the preservation order under section 40 of the Family Law Act, finding a risk of dissipation and potential irreparable harm to the Applicant's spousal support claim.

However, the Applicant's request for interim disbursements was dismissed, as she was not found to be impecunious and the requested expenses were deemed premature.

This is a costs endorsement arising from a jurisdiction motion and a Rule 25(19) motion.

The court had previously determined that Ontario had jurisdiction over spousal support claims but that property division claims were governed by Iranian law under s.15 of the Family Law Act.

The applicant, Ms. Namdar, was found to be the successful party on the underlying jurisdiction motion and sought substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent, Mr. Maali, argued for divided success and sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court found that Mr. Maali's offer to settle did not constitute a true compromise, thus not triggering Rule 18(14) cost consequences.

Considering the complexity and importance of the issues, and the reasonable conduct of both parties, the court awarded Ms. Namdar fixed costs and disbursements of $32,250, which included expert fees, finding her claimed fees of over $70,000 to be disproportionate.

The appellant sought to appeal a costs award from a family law arbitration concerning retroactive and prospective spousal support.

The court addressed the jurisdictional question of whether leave was required for an appeal of a costs award from an arbitration, finding it was not required where the arbitration agreement did not stipulate it.

Applying appellate standards of review, the court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no errors in law, palpable and overriding errors of fact, or errors in principle regarding the determination of the successful party or the finding of unreasonable conduct by both parties.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The applicant, Setareh Namdar, brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to change or delete parts of a previous order made on March 25, 2024.

The applicant sought to remove sentences from paragraph 63 of the prior endorsement, arguing they mistakenly conflated 'property division' with 'equitable claims' and were made without proper notice regarding equitable claims.

The respondent, Amir Ali Maali, argued Rule 25(19) could not be used to reargue the case.

The court found it had jurisdiction under Rule 25(19)(d) because the issue of whether the Family Law Act applied to the applicant's specific equitable claims for unjust enrichment and joint family venture was not fully before the court or noticed.

The court clarified that while s.15 of the Family Law Act governs property rights based on habitual residence, it does not necessarily apply to all equitable claims, which are rooted in common law.

The motion was granted, and paragraph 63 of the prior endorsement was replaced to reflect this clarification.

The parties attended a case conference regarding the respondent father's request to review the parenting schedule.

The respondent had failed to pay over $250,000 in child support arrears and $31,735 in costs from prior orders, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction because he lived in Pennsylvania.

The court found that the respondent's blatant refusal to comply with financial orders went to his ability to act in the children's best interests.

Relying on Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court stayed the proceedings until the respondent paid the outstanding costs, and permitted the applicant mother to bring motions for security for costs and to strike the respondent's pleadings.

In a family law proceeding involving cryptocurrency assets, the applicant brought a long motion regarding disclosure.

The respondents sought leave under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to file an expert affidavit after having already cross-examined the applicant on her motion materials.

The court dismissed the request for leave, finding the respondents failed to show the evidence responded to a matter raised on cross-examination or provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The court also ruled on several refusals from questioning, ordering the respondents to answer some questions while upholding other refusals.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking temporary spousal and child support, retroactive support, interim disbursements, and insurance orders.

The Respondent sought lower spousal support and dismissal of the Applicant's other claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the Applicant and, for support purposes, excluded the Respondent's RRSP withdrawals from his income.

The court determined interim spousal and child support amounts, found two of the three adult children remained children of the marriage for support purposes, and ordered equal contribution to section 7 expenses after RESP exhaustion.

The Applicant's claims for retroactive support, interim disbursements, and insurance were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the production of a corporate server (Decentral Server) for disclosure purposes, arguing the respondents had not adequately searched it.

This request had been previously dismissed by Justice Kiteley.

The applicant sought to revisit the prior decision, asserting new material facts, including the respondent's alleged failure to comply with an offer to conduct further searches and new expert evidence on e-discovery methods.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the alleged new facts were either not fundamentally different from what was previously argued or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the original motion.

The court affirmed that interlocutory orders are binding unless new, material, and previously undiscoverable facts are presented.

The father brought a successful motion for summer parenting time with the parties' child, successfully opposing the mother's request that the time be supervised.

The father sought costs of $11,643 for the motion.

The court found the father was the more successful party and acted reasonably, while the mother was initially unreasonable.

Considering the mother's limited income and the excessive time claimed by the father's counsel, the court ordered the mother to pay costs fixed at $3,955.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim to the proceeds of the sale of his brother and sister-in-law's matrimonial home.

The appellant claimed he advanced $700,000 for the down payment and held a beneficial interest via a trust declaration and oral agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that there was no triable issue regarding the advanced funds, the oral trust violated the Statute of Frauds, and the written trust declaration was unconscionable and coerced from the respondent wife.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought an interim 2-2-3 parenting schedule for their five-year-old daughter, N., following the parents' separation and the applicant's gender transition.

The respondent opposed, requesting a longer 'step-up' schedule.

The court considered N.'s best interests, noting her anxiety due to significant life changes and the respondent's role as primary caregiver.

The court ordered a phased 'step-up' parenting schedule, culminating in the applicant having parenting time 5 out of every 14 days, conditional on securing a suitable residence near the matrimonial home.

The court emphasized minimizing adverse impact on the child's well-being.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the self-represented respondent.

The appellant appealed two orders of a Family Court judge that directed the release of proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial property to the respondent and dismissed the appellant's claim for an equitable interest in the proceeds.

The Divisional Court raised a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court determined that it had jurisdiction under s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the orders under appeal were made only under provisions of an Act or regulation of Ontario, specifically the Family Law Act and the Family Law Rules, and did not involve federal legislation.

This ruling addresses a motion for temporary parenting arrangements for a two-year-old child in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The respondent father sought a triaged increase in parenting time leading to shared parenting, while the applicant mother, who had primary care, agreed to an increase in principle but disagreed on the timing and scope.

The court, noting the parties' extensive and detrimental conflict, ordered a staged increase in the father's parenting time, including overnights, while maintaining the mother's primary care, pending a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment.

The decision also included orders for shared decision-making, communication protocols, shared costs for supervised access, and prohibitions against disparagement and social media posts.

The court declined to award costs, citing the parties' counterproductive litigation behaviour.