Michael Clarke

The payor father brought a motion to change a 2014 child support order, seeking to terminate support for his two adult children due to his terminal cancer diagnosis, job loss, and the children's ability to support themselves.

The recipient mother sought retroactive increases in support and contributions to post-secondary expenses.

The court found material changes in circumstances and allowed both retroactive claims to proceed.

The court ordered retroactive increases in the Table amount for 2015 and 2016, but reduced the payor's obligation starting June 2017 due to his decreased income and the children's receipt of CPP disability benefits and employment income.

The court terminated the payor's child support obligation entirely effective June 30, 2018, resulting in a final arrears balance of $1,363 owed to the mother.

The Applicant, Sara Zehra Salim, sought costs following a lengthy family law trial where she was largely successful on issues of custody, access, spousal support, and Mehr payment.

The court found the Respondent, Syed Adeel Safdar, acted in bad faith regarding domestic violence allegations, which significantly prolonged the litigation and increased the Applicant's legal expenses.

The court awarded Sara $300,000 in costs, with $25,000 to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) as support-related expenses, considering the Respondent's financial difficulties and the need to preserve his ability to exercise supervised access.

Maryann Kutlesa initiated an action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act to set aside the transfer of a 50% interest in a cottage lot from her ex-husband Jozo Kutlesa's company (1349241 Ontario Inc.) to his uncle, John Kotsiou.

She also sought a constructive trust over the interest.

John Kotsiou counterclaimed against Maryann for post-transfer expenses and cross-claimed against Jozo Kutlesa for indemnification.

The court found that Jozo Kutlesa's intent in making the conveyance was fraudulent, but John Kotsiou was protected under section 3 of the Act due to good faith and lack of notice.

Consequently, Maryann's claims were dismissed.

John's counterclaim against Maryann for past operational costs and mortgage payments was dismissed due to his exclusive possession of the property and Jozo's partial contribution.

John's cross-claim against Jozo for outstanding mortgage indemnification was granted.

The respondent father sought costs following several court attendances arising from an unsuccessful urgent motion brought by the applicant mother concerning temporary parenting arrangements for young children.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found the father was entirely successful on the motion, having obtained equal time-sharing while the mother’s request for temporary custody was dismissed.

The court concluded the urgent motion was unjustified and that the mother adopted an unnecessarily confrontational litigation strategy, while the father’s conduct was reasonable and settlement-focused.

Considering success, settlement offers, litigation conduct, and proportionality, the court awarded significant partial indemnity costs but declined to award costs for the case conference.

On a temporary parenting motion following the parties’ separation and imminent sale of the matrimonial home, the applicant sought temporary sole custody with limited access for the respondent.

The respondent sought equal parenting time and opposed any custodial designation at this early stage.

The court emphasized that interim parenting determinations are based on incomplete and untested evidence and should preserve the children’s best interests while avoiding strategic creation of a status quo.

Finding both parents capable and historically involved in caregiving, the court concluded that shared parenting most closely reflected the pre‑separation arrangement.

A temporary equal time‑sharing schedule was ordered to maintain the children’s emotional bonds with both parents pending further proceedings.