Michael Rankin

The parties were married in 1987 and separated in 2015.

During the marriage, while living in Quebec, they signed two notarial instruments (in 1988 and 1990) adopting a 'separate as to property' regime and opting out of the Quebec family patrimony regime.

The applicant wife sought an equalization of net family property under the Ontario Family Law Act, arguing the Quebec instruments did not oust the Ontario equalization regime or, alternatively, should be set aside under s. 56(4) of the Act.

The court held that the Quebec instruments did not contain clear and cogent language addressing the relative economic positions of the parties upon marriage breakdown, and therefore did not oust the equalization provisions of the Act.

Alternatively, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the instruments under s. 56(4) because the respondent husband failed to disclose significant assets (his multi-million dollar inheritances) and the wife did not understand the nature and consequences of the contracts when she signed them.

The wife was permitted to proceed with her equalization claim.

The moving party brought a motion to strike the responding party's pleadings and for costs due to her failure to comply with a prior disclosure order.

The court found that the responding party had disobeyed the order and that her non-compliance was willful, despite her claims that her former lawyer was responsible.

However, the court concluded that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort and the non-compliance was not egregious enough to warrant such a drastic measure.

The court dismissed the request to strike pleadings but ordered the responding party to pay $5,000 in costs and to produce the remaining outstanding disclosure forthwith.

The appellant appealed a family arbitration award regarding the calculation of spousal support under a separation agreement.

The core issue was the interpretation of 'previously equalized property' and whether the gross or net value (after contingent tax liabilities) of the respondent's pension should be excluded from his income to avoid 'double dipping'.

The Arbitrator accepted the joint actuary's methodology of deducting the gross equalized portion from the gross pension received.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement or her reliance on the actuarial evidence.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's claim of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The plaintiff, a dentist, alleged he was misled during negotiations to exercise an option to purchase an interest in a dental practice.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligent misrepresentation, including duty of care, detrimental reliance, and damages.

The court granted the motion to strike the negligent misrepresentation claim but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to cure the deficiencies.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, interim disbursements, a restraining order, and the appointment of a receiver/manager for the respondent husband's companies.

The husband sought to terminate an existing non-dissipation order and requested access to their 15-year-old son.

Due to the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure, the court imputed his income at $600,000 per year and ordered interim child and spousal support accordingly.

The court continued the non-dissipation order to protect the wife's equalization claim but declined to appoint a receiver/manager or grant a restraining order.

The wife's request for interim disbursements was denied as she was not impecunious.

Following a motion regarding child and spousal support, the applicant mother sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the mother was substantially successful on the motion, particularly regarding spousal support, section 7 expenses, and insurance designations.

The court applied the maximum hourly rates set out in OGT Holdings and reduced the claimed fees and disbursements to reflect a fair and reasonable amount that the unsuccessful party would expect to pay.

The respondent father was ordered to pay costs of $14,250 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a family law proceeding concerning spousal support and arrears, the responding party disputed portions of a draft order prepared following earlier reasons for decision.

The court directed that the responding party bring a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to address the disputed provisions.

Procedural timelines were set for service of motion materials, responses, replies, cross-examinations, and undertakings.

Pending determination of the motion, the court ordered interim payment of spousal support arrears totaling $24,000 plus an additional $5,000 payment, with compliance to be considered in the determination of costs.

The respondent moved to bifurcate a family law trial to determine custody, support, and the validity of a marriage contract before addressing equalization of net family property.

The applicant opposed and sought extensive financial disclosure, arguing the issues of property division and spousal support were interrelated.

The court held that the validity of the marriage contract and spousal support analysis under Miglin require knowledge of the parties’ financial positions at separation.

Because property equalization must precede spousal support and the issues were intertwined, bifurcation would risk prejudice and inefficiency.

The motion for bifurcation was dismissed and the respondent was ordered to provide full financial disclosure regarding assets and liabilities at separation.

The defendant corporation brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to re-attend for examination for discovery to complete discovery and follow up on undertakings.

The court reviewed the discovery history, including prior undertakings, a resolved motion to compel answers, and cross-examinations conducted in the context of a summary judgment motion.

Applying proportionality principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Senechal, the court held that further oral discovery was unnecessary and would risk delaying pre-trial and trial scheduling.

However, the court permitted limited written follow-up questions relating to specific undertakings and refusals.

The motion for additional oral discovery was dismissed with conditions allowing narrowly tailored written follow-up questions.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act seeking a sealing order and anonymization of the parties and their children in a family law proceeding.

The motion was based on evidence that the children were emotionally vulnerable due to their parents’ separation and other recent traumatic events, and that the family’s prominence could attract media attention and expose the children to bullying or psychological harm.

Applying the Dagenais–Mentuck framework and authorities on open courts and confidentiality orders, the court found a serious risk of harm to a public interest—namely the protection of vulnerable children.

However, the court held that sealing the entire file was unnecessary.

Instead, it ordered that the parties and children be identified by initials and that only the portions of the file dealing with the marriage contract challenge, exclusive possession of the cottage, and custody and access be sealed.