Michael Rappaport

The applicant mother brought a motion to determine whether the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction over custody and access of the parties' child, who had been living in India with his paternal grandparents since 2018.

The court found that because the parties were pursuing a divorce and both resided in Ontario, the Divorce Act superseded the Children's Law Reform Act, granting the court jurisdiction.

Alternatively, the court found that under the CLRA, the child's last habitual residence was with his parents in Ontario, also giving the court jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed an order striking his answer and amended answer in a family law proceeding due to his ongoing failure to comply with court orders regarding costs, household expenses, and financial disclosure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the appellant's non-compliance to be wilful and egregious.

The court emphasized that striking pleadings is an exceptional remedy but was justified here given the appellant's repeated disregard for his fundamental obligations.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent father sought costs after successfully obtaining summary judgment, which dismissed the applicant mother's motion to change parenting and spousal support provisions.

The court found the mother's motion to vary lacked merit, was an attempt to re-litigate issues previously decided after an eleven-day trial, and constituted an unreasonable initiation of proceedings.

Considering the father's bill of costs, which was slightly reduced to account for attendance at initial appearances and case conferences related to other matters, the court ordered the mother to pay $5,000 in costs.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant mother's motion to change a final divorce order concerning parenting, child support, and spousal support.

The court found no material change in circumstances justifying a variation of the parenting provisions or the duration of spousal support, dismissing those aspects of the mother's motion.

The father was granted leave to file a response to the motion to change to address the yearly review of child and spousal support quantum.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion and cross-motion where there was divided success.

The party seeking costs was successful in obtaining an order to sell the matrimonial home and opposing temporary spousal support, while the party opposing costs succeeded in obtaining child support and a disclosure order.

The court found the party seeking costs was more successful and awarded them partial indemnity costs fixed at $1,650, payable from the opposing party's portion of the proceeds of sale of the home.

The respondent moved for an order to sell the jointly owned matrimonial home before trial, which the applicant opposed.

The applicant also sought temporary spousal support and retroactive child support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding the applicant could not afford the carrying costs and the equity would not justify transferring the respondent's interest to her.

The court dismissed the claim for temporary spousal support as the respondent lacked the ability to pay, but ordered the respondent to pay retroactive child support for the period the child lived with the applicant before completing high school.

The applicant's pleadings were struck, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The respondent sought to sever the joint tenancy of the matrimonial home, vest the applicant's interest in her name, obtain reimbursement for a $35,000 advance on equalization, and vacate a charging order registered by the applicant's solicitor against the home.

The court granted the vesting order, finding the applicant had already withdrawn his equity.

The court dismissed the claim for reimbursement of the $35,000 advance due to lack of evidence regarding repayment terms.

The court vacated the charging order, finding it was obtained without full disclosure of the parties' financial circumstances and in breach of a prior non-encumbrance order.

This endorsement determines costs following a prior decision where the applicant's pleadings were struck.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the applicant's conduct, including wilful failure to pay costs and comply with disclosure orders, and filing misleading financial statements, warranted such an award.

The court found the applicant's behaviour unreasonable, justifying a higher costs award, but not rising to the level of bad faith requiring full indemnity.

The respondent's legal fees were adjusted for reasonableness and proportionality, and the applicant was ordered to pay fixed costs of $9,250, inclusive of HST and disbursements, representing approximately 80% of the respondent's reasonable costs.

The Respondent brought a motion to strike the Applicant's pleadings, for security for trial costs, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court found the Applicant had wilfully and egregiously failed to comply with three previous court orders, including two cost orders totaling $15,000 and a detailed disclosure order.

The Applicant's financial statements were found to be misleading and untrue, failing to disclose significant debts.

Applying a three-pronged test for striking pleadings, the court determined that there was a triggering event, striking the pleadings was appropriate given the exceptional circumstances and wilful non-compliance, and no other remedies would suffice.

The Applicant's pleadings were struck, the Respondent was granted interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and was permitted to proceed to an uncontested trial.

A conditional order was made allowing the Applicant to seek reinstatement of his pleadings if he fully complied with outstanding cost and disclosure orders by a specified date.

The motion judge previously awarded costs against the respondent and, on his own initiative, raised the issue of whether the respondent's lawyer should be personally liable for those costs under Family Law Rule 24(9).

The matter was adjourned to a different judge.

The court found that while the lawyer's conduct met the threshold of running up costs without reasonable cause due to incompetence, there was no bad faith or unethical conduct.

Exercising extreme caution, the court declined to order costs against the lawyer personally.

The applicant sought child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The court determined the parties' incomes, notably excluding the applicant's RRSP withdrawals from her income for support purposes as they were necessary to meet living expenses while she received inadequate support.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support, initially on a set-off basis for shared custody and later as table support.

The court also found the applicant entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, awarding mid-range support retroactive to the commencement of the application and terminating in 2025.

The applicant sought costs fixed at $4,500 for a motion heard on October 22, 2018, where the respondent was the moving party and was substantially unsuccessful.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the underlying motion and was entitled to costs.

The respondent's arguments for deferring the costs decision, including an alleged apprehension of bias, the assignment of a case management judge, and an attempt to re-argue the motion, were rejected.

Applying the Family Law Rules and appellate guidance on proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $3,470, at the upper end of the partial recovery range, considering the respondent's errors in the underlying motion.

The respondent, David Blair Watts, brought a motion seeking extensive disclosure and procedural relief from the applicant, Karen Enid Elaine Martin, in a family law proceeding.

The motion primarily sought bank statements, credit card records, and proof of certain financial transactions, alleging a "money laundering scheme" and misrepresentation of matrimonial home value.

Watts also requested an order for interim disbursements.

The court largely dismissed Watts's motion, finding many disclosure requests unsubstantiated, factually misguided, or relating to records equally available to him.

The court ordered the applicant to produce specific proof for one sum and a cheque copy if not already provided.

The request for interim disbursements was denied due to Watts's financial capacity, prior unsuccessful motions, and the applicant's compliance with disclosure obligations.

Leave was granted for amended pleadings.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking comprehensive financial disclosure from the Respondent, an order for interim child support, and the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed the motion and attempted to bring a cross-motion, which was dismissed due to late service.

The court found the Respondent had failed to provide full and frank disclosure despite previous orders and drew an adverse inference regarding his divestment of corporate shares.

The court granted the Applicant's requests for detailed disclosure, ordered the continuation of interim child support, and mandated the sale of the jointly owned property, finding no prejudice to the Respondent's claims under the Family Law Act.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to find the applicant mother in contempt of previous court orders regarding a week-on/week-off parenting schedule and mandated counselling for the children.

The mother argued that the father failed to effect special service and that a contempt motion was premature.

The court waived the special service requirement but agreed that a contempt motion was premature given the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the breakdown of the parenting arrangement.

The court adjourned the contempt motion and ordered the parties to attend a case conference to attempt to resolve the issues.

The moving party sought to re-open a previously dismissed motion by introducing fresh evidence of alleged mortgage fraud, and also brought an unscheduled disclosure motion.

The court dismissed the motion to re-open, finding the proposed evidence did not meet the Palmer test as it could have been discovered with due diligence and would not have changed the outcome.

The court declined to hear the unscheduled disclosure motion.

Costs of $5,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The court adjourned the issue of whether the moving party's counsel should be personally liable for costs under Rule 24(9) to allow counsel to obtain independent legal advice.

Following an 11-day family law trial where the respondent father was entirely successful in preventing the applicant mother from relocating to Austria with their child, the respondent sought costs of $105,677.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, the applicant's bad faith conduct including false allegations of abuse, and the principles of proportionality.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $75,000.

Furthermore, the court held it had jurisdiction to set off the costs award against the respondent's spousal support obligations, ordering a set-off against any arrears and $1,500 per month from ongoing spousal support.

Following a trial decision, the parties delivered written costs submissions.

The applicant asserted that the respondent's offers to settle were withdrawn prior to trial and were not received until they were appended to the costs submissions.

The court directed the respondent to serve and file proof of service of any offers to settle relied upon, as well as evidence showing whether and when any such offer was withdrawn.

The parties sought costs following an interim order for child and spousal support.

The applicant claimed costs of $9,453.59, while the respondent claimed costs for multiple appearances.

The court considered the offers to settle and the conduct of the parties, noting the respondent's unreasonable delay in disclosing his income and the unreasonableness of a term in his offer to settle regarding imputed income.

Ultimately, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant mother sought to permanently relocate to Vienna, Austria with the parties' four-year-old child.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought sole custody.

The mother had previously withheld the child in Vienna, resulting in a Hague Convention order for the child's return.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that relocation was not in the child's best interests, as it would severely disrupt the child's relationship with the father.

The court granted sole custody to the father with a 50/50 shared parenting schedule, finding the mother had repeatedly used the child as leverage and restricted the father's access.

The court also imputed minimum wage income to the mother for the purposes of calculating child and spousal support, and ordered spousal support to terminate in January 2019.