Michael J. Polisuk

This family law trial addressed complex financial issues between former spouses after a protracted separation, including equalization of net family property, post-valuation date adjustments, and occupation rent for the matrimonial home.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, determined the value of various assets and liabilities, and ruled on the deductibility of the husband's alleged pre-marriage assets and the excludability of the wife's gifted shares.

The decision also considered the wife's conduct regarding the delayed sale of the matrimonial home and the husband's claim for occupation rent, ultimately ordering a net payment from the husband to the wife, alongside a significant occupation rent payment from the wife to the husband.

The appellant father appealed an order from an uncontested trial where his pleadings were struck for non-disclosure in a child support motion to change.

The respondent mother brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing the father lacked standing.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, dismissing the appeal.

The court affirmed that parties whose pleadings are struck generally lack standing to appeal an uncontested trial order, finding no exceptional circumstances.

It clarified that evolving Section 7 expenses do not constitute new heads of relief requiring amended pleadings, distinguishing the case from Freedman v. Freedman.

The court emphasized the importance of disclosure in child support matters.

The mother sought an urgent, without-notice restraining order against the step-father/father to protect herself and three children due to ongoing family violence and safety concerns.

The motion, initially under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA), was amended to include relief under the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) and Family Law Act (FLA).

The court found reasonable grounds for fear for safety based on evidence of physical and verbal abuse.

A temporary restraining order was granted on a without-notice basis, with the mother directed to forthwith commence a CLRA application.

The court emphasized the paramount purpose of child protection in granting the order despite CYFSA's notice requirements.

The applicant sought to vary a 2010 final order for child support to account for the children's university education.

The respondent, with a history of non-disclosure and abuse of process, had his pleadings struck, leading to an uncontested hearing.

The court imputed income to the respondent and ordered payment of s. 7 expenses and substantial arrears.

The decision also critically examined a recent interim order granted to the respondent, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to litigation and a stringent test for interim variations of final orders.

The respondent father sought leave to bring various motions to change a final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses, having previously been prohibited from bringing motions without leave.

The court denied leave, finding that the father had failed to comply with previous costs orders, had unilaterally reduced his child support payments, and was attempting to relitigate issues that had already been dismissed on an interim basis.

The father was ordered to pay costs of the case conference.

The respondent brought a motion to change to reduce interim child support and s. 7 expenses due to a change in employment.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding he failed to prove a material change in circumstances or an urgent need for interim relief, largely due to incomplete financial disclosure and a history of non-compliance.

A minor variation was made to the final order, requiring child support for Victoria for four months a year when she resides with the applicant, instead of 12 months.

The appellant father appealed from an order striking his pleadings in a motion to change child support.

The parties had previously settled all issues arising from their marriage breakdown, with the father's income deemed at $120,000 per year and agreeing to contribute $1,000 monthly toward section 7 expenses for five years.

After the five-year term ended, the father ceased payments.

The mother initiated a motion to change seeking continued section 7 contributions.

The father opposed and sought a refund of approximately $66,000.

The motion judge struck the father's pleadings after he failed to comply with undertakings to provide proof of the source of approximately $1,169,000 in deposits, despite being requested to do so on five occasions and receiving clear directions on compliance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with voyeurism, mischief, and breach of a common law peace bond following an incident at a Dollarama store in Richmond Hill on February 24, 2017.

The complainant believed the defendant had placed his cell phone between her legs and taken a picture up her skirt.

The Crown sought to prove the offence as an attempt to commit voyeurism under section 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the physical positioning of the parties suggested the defendant may have been contemplating such an activity, the totality of the evidence did not establish the essential elements of an attempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

No photograph was found on the defendant's phone, and the Crown could not prove the defendant had the necessary mens rea to commit the offence.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

The appellant and respondent appealed from a trial judge's order dealing with child support and spousal support.

The appellant sought to characterize a $75,000 advance as a payment on account of spousal support, while the respondent contended that the trial judge erred in calculating the length of cohabitation as 13 years instead of 16.5 years, which affected the duration of spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding the $75,000 payment and allowed the respondent's cross-appeal, finding that the period of cohabitation should be 16 years and 5 months, resulting in an increased duration of spousal support from 11 years to 14 years from the date of separation.

The applicant sought disclosure for claims of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, tracing, and spousal support.

The respondent moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims based on limitation periods and to strike or stay the application due to unpaid costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's disclosure motion, granted the respondent's summary judgment motion, dismissing the property claims due to expired limitation periods and laches, and stayed the application until the applicant complies with all outstanding costs orders.

The Applicant Husband, successful in a bifurcated trial upholding a marriage contract and denying further spousal support, sought costs of $95,000.

The Respondent Wife opposed, arguing Rule 18 did not apply and the costs were excessive, citing her financial position.

The court found the Husband's offers to settle did not meet Rule 18 criteria due to time limits and conditions, but considered them under Rule 24.

The Husband's position was deemed more reasonable, and the Wife's litigation conduct, including unreasonable settlement positions and unsupported claims, was discouraged.

The court awarded the Husband $80,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, noting the importance of upholding private agreements and discouraging attempts to set aside valid contracts.

Following the dismissal of the respondent’s motion in family litigation, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant had been fully successful and sought substantial indemnity costs after prolonged litigation, multiple unsuccessful offers, and the respondent’s continued attempts to relitigate issues contrary to prior orders.

The court found the respondent’s conduct unreasonable, including bringing unnecessary motions and failing to comply with previous orders.

Applying proportionality and the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay $33,900 within 30 days and barred from bringing further motions until all costs were paid.

The former husband brought a motion to change a final consent divorce order, seeking reimbursement for various small financial claims totaling $9,270.31 and $50,000 in costs thrown away, alleging unreasonable behaviour by the former wife.

The former wife brought a cross-motion seeking annual confirmation of the former husband's life insurance policy.

The court dismissed the former husband's motion in its entirety, finding his claims invalid and his conduct defiant and litigious.

The court granted the former wife's request regarding the life insurance policy.