Meysa Maleki

This was a family law costs decision arising from a settled third-party records motion seeking production from a bank.

The court held that settlement did not preclude a full costs analysis and found the moving party was successful because the consent order delivered the disclosure relief sought.

In any event, costs were warranted under the Family Law Rules because the responding party had repeatedly failed to comply with prior disclosure orders and acted unreasonably on the motion itself.

The court found the amount claimed excessive for a straightforward production motion and fixed fair and proportionate costs at $8,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed orders of the Superior Court to the Divisional Court.

At the hearing, the court raised a preliminary question regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court adjourned the appeal sine die and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue and whether the appeal should be transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking an order finding the Respondent in breach of prior court orders related to disclosure and timetables, requesting a financial penalty for ongoing non-compliance, and a restraining order.

The court found the Respondent had breached disclosure orders from Justices Kiteley and Hood regarding an ISN file, a Bank of Nova Scotia loan, Mr. Bisceglia's file, and an EquiGenesis Report.

The court ordered a daily financial penalty of $2,500 for each day disclosure remains outstanding, effective April 1, 2022.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed.

The Respondent father moved to set aside Minutes of Settlement (MOS), arguing the Applicant mother fundamentally breached them by commencing a new defamation proceeding in Iran the day after signing the MOS, which was intended to consolidate all litigation.

The Applicant mother cross-moved to enforce the MOS and for the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court found that the Applicant's failure to disclose and refusal to withdraw the Iranian defamation claim constituted a fundamental breach of the MOS, as the agreement's core purpose was to terminate all multi-jurisdictional litigation arising from the marriage breakdown in favour of an alternative dispute resolution process in Ontario.

The court set aside the MOS, dismissed the Applicant's cross-motion, and declined to address the question of jurisdiction at that stage.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a February 17, 2021 decision regarding interim spousal support.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on three specific issues: whether the motion judge erred by ordering a net amount of spousal support contrary to the Income Tax Act, whether a material change in circumstances was required to vary an interim without prejudice order, and whether the motion judge relied on irrelevant considerations or made palpable and overriding errors in determining the temporary spousal support amount.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the moving party.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, seeking to impute an annual income of $1.5 million to the respondent father based on text messages and lifestyle.

The father argued his income was $146,655.50.

The court found the financial disclosure from both parties to be inadequate and applied 'rough justice' to determine income based on the parties' sworn living expenses.

The court imputed an income of $285,000 to the father and zero income to the mother, ordering temporary spousal support of $7,201 per month and child support of $2,271 per month.

The mother's request for an order requiring the father to obtain $4.1 million in life insurance was dismissed due to a lack of evidence.

The appellant husband appealed an arbitrator's award dismissing his claim to a 50 percent beneficial ownership interest in the matrimonial home.

The husband had transferred his jointly-held interest in the home to the respondent wife to protect it from potential creditors.

The arbitrator found the transfer was a gift, not a resulting trust.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly applied the presumption of resulting trust, properly considered the husband's intention to defeat creditors, and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the husband intended to gift his interest and divested himself of control over the property.

The applicant wife brought a motion to find the respondent husband in breach of previous child support, spousal support, and costs orders, and to strike his pleadings.

The husband had accumulated over $52,000 in arrears and claimed impecuniosity due to the pandemic, despite maintaining his pre-separation lifestyle.

The court found the husband in breach of the orders but declined to immediately strike his pleadings, instead granting him a final opportunity to pay the outstanding arrears and costs by a specified date, failing which the wife could move to strike his pleadings on all non-parenting issues.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions in a family law proceeding.

The court reviewed the continuation of a temporary spousal support order for a personal care assistant (PCA) and decided on two Form 14B motions for leave to bring further motions.

The Respondent sought leave to compel production of the Applicant's entire medical file, which was denied due to disproportionality and lack of necessity.

The Applicant sought leave for several reliefs, including striking affidavits, a restraining order, and interim disbursements.

The court dismissed most of the Applicant's requests for leave but granted leave for a motion for interim costs, recognizing the complexity of the Respondent's financial affairs and the need to "level the playing field." The court also clarified its ongoing case management role.

The applicant sought an order addressing the income tax consequences of a temporary spousal support order previously made.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a lump sum equal to the applicant's tax liability on the periodic spousal support received in 2018.

The court also directed a review of the ongoing necessity and cost of the applicant's 24/7 personal care assistant.

Appeal of a motion judge's order terminating indefinite spousal support after 22 years.

The respondent sought termination in anticipation of retirement, while the appellant sought an increase to $15,000 per month.

The motion judge found a material change in circumstances based on the appellant's failure to return to the workforce despite having marketable skills and professional qualifications.

The motion judge terminated support effective October 5, 2016, and awarded costs of $50,000 against the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the termination, finding no error in principle and dismissing all grounds of appeal.

This is a costs endorsement following a 15-day motion to change custody and access.

The father sought full indemnity costs of $213,653.63 after successfully obtaining reinstatement of unsupervised access to the child.

The mother opposed costs, arguing the father lacked standing due to prior breaches of cost orders and bankruptcy proceedings.

The court awarded the father $150,000 in costs, finding him the successful party but reducing the award due to his unreasonable conduct during the litigation, including identifying himself in media coverage, failing to exercise access for extended periods, breaching supervised access orders, and surreptitiously recording the child's therapist.

This is a motion to change a 2009 custody and access order in a highly contentious family law dispute involving a child with alleged food allergies.

The mother sought to impose indefinite supervised access on the father, claiming he failed to comply with medical directives regarding the child's purported life-threatening allergy to tartrazine (yellow food dye).

The father sought reinstatement of the original parenting plan or, alternatively, sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's medical condition and the father's two lengthy absences from the child's life (totalling 16 months).

However, the court rejected the mother's request for indefinite supervised access, finding no credible evidence that the child faced physical risk in the father's unsupervised care.

The court reinstated substantially the original parenting plan with modifications, granting the father regular unsupervised access including overnight visits and holidays.

The court found the mother had undermined the father-child relationship through hyper-vigilance and over-protectiveness, while the father demonstrated poor judgment through his absences and oppositional conduct.

The child's best interests were served by maintaining the mother's custody while restoring meaningful access to the father.

Following the dismissal of the applicant mother's motion to register the parties' child in the National Ballet School, the respondent father sought costs of $17,513 on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for a no-costs award, citing her good faith and the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle or provide financial disclosure.

The court found that both parties acted in good faith and that the binary nature of the motion precluded a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $8,500.

The applicant sought an order to permit her to register her child, Kalle, in the National Ballet School (NBS) for the 2016/2017 year.

The respondent opposed this motion, arguing that Kalle's weekend classes would interfere with his limited access time with both children.

The court considered the child's best interests and the "maximum contact principle" finding insufficient evidence that Kalle's participation in the NBS Associates Program, which is not the professional program, should override the respondent's access time.

The motion was dismissed.

The parties separated and engaged in a high-conflict dispute over the parenting of their young daughter.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to San Francisco, where her extended family lived.

The father opposed the move, sought equal parenting time, and requested that no custody order be made.

The court declined to make a formal custody order, finding it would only fuel the conflict.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding that the move was primarily for her preference and would disrupt the child's consistent and beneficial relationship with her father.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule based on the assessor's recommendations, granted the mother final decision-making on medical and religious issues, and granted the father final decision-making on educational issues.

The applicant sought to modify a temporary access order concerning the parties' child, relying on an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report, the resolution of criminal charges, the passage of time, and the facilitator's health.

The respondent opposed, arguing against the use of the OCL report at an interlocutory stage and the absence of a material change in circumstances.

The court found compelling reasons to adjust the access regime, acknowledging the OCL report's factual utility and the child's developmental stage.

The court expanded the applicant's access to include alternate longer weekends, a weekday overnight, and specific holiday periods, but maintained the applicant's sole responsibility for transportation and providing a facilitator due to unresolved safety concerns.

The maternal family members of a four-year-old child sought a motion for consistent, unsupervised access to the child following the death of the child's mother.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing that as the sole surviving parent, he should retain discretion over access decisions.

The court found that while the father had legitimate concerns about the family's conduct, his decision to restrict access was partially arbitrary and not in the child's best interests.

The court granted limited unsupervised access to the child's grandmother and aunt, with strict conditions regarding conduct and communication.

The court also struck paragraphs of the father's application containing defamation claims, finding the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over such claims, and refused to transfer the proceeding to Superior Court.

At a Trial Management Conference for a family law dispute involving custody and mobility issues, the court reviewed the parties' extensive witness lists which estimated 24 to 25 days of trial time.

The court had previously set a tentative 15-day trial date.

To ensure the trial proceeds efficiently and maximizes judicial resources, the court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to impose strict time limits, allocating 37.5 hours per party, and ordered counsel to reduce oral evidence.

The trial date remained tentative pending a supplementary TMC.