Mimi Marrello

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer and vest the matrimonial home in her name due to the respondent's persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders.

The respondent had previously been found in contempt, jailed for 30 days, and claimed to have burned over $1 million in cash to avoid paying the applicant.

The court found the respondent's conduct egregious and struck his Answer regarding financial issues, allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial on those matters.

The court also granted a vesting order transferring the matrimonial home to the applicant to secure her interests against the respondent's anticipated future non-compliance.

The respondent brought a motion to determine which intermediate school the parties' eldest child should attend.

The parties shared custody and lived in different catchment areas.

The respondent preferred a public school closer to her home, while the applicant preferred a Catholic school closer to his home.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as the child's moderate preference for the Catholic school, the schools' resources for the child's dyslexia, and the logistical challenges of the commute.

The court ordered the child to attend the Catholic school, placing weight on the child's consistent preference and the applicant's willingness to assist with transportation.

This costs endorsement arose from three events in a family law matter where the respondent mother removed children from the matrimonial home and withheld them.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion, a substantive motion for interim decision-making and parenting, and a review motion.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party on the primary issues of decision-making and parenting time.

The respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable, and she failed to accept a reasonable offer to settle from the applicant.

Considering the applicant's success, the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, and the applicant's offer to settle, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $17,250 to the applicant.

The parties were subject to a final consent order containing a dispute resolution clause that mandated mediation and arbitration for parenting disputes.

The applicant father refused to arbitrate, arguing the clause lacked the statutory formalities required for a valid family arbitration agreement.

The respondent mother commenced a Motion to Change but subsequently brought a motion to stay her own proceeding to enforce the arbitration clause.

The court held that while the clause lacked formal statutory requirements, it constituted a binding agreement to enter into secondary arbitration.

The court stayed the Motion to Change and ordered the parties to execute a formal family arbitration agreement.

The appellant mother appealed from contempt findings and sanctions for breaching a parenting order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the mother intentionally breached the order in four respects.

However, the Court found that the motion judge erred by failing to consider discretionary factors, specifically whether a contempt finding was a remedy of last resort and alternative enforcement options, despite properly considering the child's best interests.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the contempt findings and sanctions, replacing them with declarations that the mother intentionally breached the parenting order.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child support.

The respondent father had been unemployed since 2017 and owned a vacant, mortgage-free rental property.

The court found the father had not made reasonable efforts to gain employment or utilize his property to generate income promptly upon separation.

The court imputed an income of $58,000 to the father for 2020 and ordered him to pay $13,776 in child support for that year, with ongoing support based on his new $100,000 salary.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's parenting time, alleging the children were afraid of him and that he used inappropriate discipline.

The Children's Aid Society had investigated and closed its file, finding no physical danger.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the situation did not meet the legal threshold for urgency under Rule 14(4) of the Family Law Rules, as there was no immediate risk of harm, and the applicant had not attempted to negotiate or schedule a case conference before bringing the motion.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for temporary sole custody, primary residence, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home after the respondent mother removed the children from the home without notice.

The mother sought temporary sole custody and limited access for the father, alleging safety concerns related to his PTSD.

The court condemned the mother's self-help tactics and withholding of access, ordering temporary joint custody and a shared parenting schedule where the parents rotate in and out of the matrimonial home.

The issues of exclusive possession and costs were adjourned for further evidence.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary sole custody to enroll the child in an Ontario school, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction because the child was habitually resident in Quebec.

The court applied section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act and found that the child's habitual residence remained in Quebec, meaning Ontario lacked jurisdiction over the main application.

However, pursuant to section 40(b) of the Act, the court granted the mother temporary sole custody to allow her to make important decisions, such as school enrollment, pending the resolution of the jurisdictional and paternity proceedings in Quebec.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking to prohibit the applicant father from taking their 9-year-old child on a planned cottage vacation with extended family due to COVID-19 health risks.

The mother argued the father's plan to merge three households into a social circle was non-compliant with provincial guidelines and posed an unnecessary risk to the child and herself, given her asthma.

The father opposed, asserting his plan was safe and compliant.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding the father's social circle plan lacked sufficient information regarding all participants' social contacts and failed to account for the separated parents' need to include each other in their household bubbles before expanding.

The court concluded the potential health risks outweighed the benefits of the vacation, particularly considering the mother's heightened vulnerability due to asthma.

The applicant sought costs following a motion concerning interest on a judgment order and a variation of spousal support based on the respondent's post-separation income increase.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was substantially successful in obtaining interest, full payment of the judgment order, and a substantial increase in spousal support.

The court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $10,000.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order, seeking increased spousal support based on the respondent's significant post-separation income increase, as well as enforcement of a prior judgment for $21,600.00.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's increased income and determined the applicant had a compensatory claim entitling her to share in that increase.

The court ordered increased spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and directed the respondent to pay the outstanding judgment balance with interest.

The appellant appealed from an order striking out his entire Answer pursuant to a consent order requiring disclosure of financial documentation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the settlement judge's jurisdiction to strike pleadings for failure to comply with disclosure obligations, finding that such orders may be made at settlement conferences to promote the overarching objectives of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the portion of the Answer relating to custody and access should not have been struck, as custody decisions must be based on the best interests of the children and require full participation of both parents.

The matter was ordered to proceed to trial on an expedited basis.

This trial addressed the income of the self-employed applicant, child support, retroactive child support, and spousal support.

The court preferred the applicant's expert opinion on income, with a minor adjustment for an unreasonable rental loss deduction.

The respondent's claim of under-employment was rejected.

Retroactive child support was ordered from July 1, 2012, and ongoing child support was set using the set-off method.

The applicant was found entitled to compensatory and needs-based spousal support, with ongoing monthly payments ordered from January 1, 2018.

However, the claim for retroactive spousal support was dismissed due to concerns about hardship to the payor and the applicant's delay in providing reliable income evidence.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's claims for retroactive child support, equalization of net family property, and a resulting trust over her pension.

The court dismissed the claim for retroactive child support because the adult child was no longer a student and therefore not a 'child of the marriage' when the application was commenced.

The equalization claim was dismissed because it was a claim provable in bankruptcy and was extinguished when the respondent was discharged from bankruptcy.

The resulting trust claim was dismissed for lack of factual foundation.

The applicant's claim for a divorce order was permitted to proceed.

Following a temporary order regarding access, child support, and the sale of the matrimonial home, the court considered the parties' written submissions on costs.

The court noted that both the applicant and the respondent achieved divided success on the various issues.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and finding no bad faith, the court concluded that no order as to costs was appropriate.

The mother brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of her three special needs children and permission to relocate them from Ottawa to London, Ontario.

The Children's Aid Society and the father opposed the motion, arguing that there had been no material change in circumstances since a previous order placed the children in the father's care.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that she failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances requiring an interim change in the children's placement.

Many of the allegations raised by the mother were found to have been previously considered.

Supplementary reasons addressing an omission in earlier reasons regarding the commencement date for interim spousal support in a family law proceeding.

The court had previously imputed income to the respondent after finding he remained in France contrary to an agreement to return to Canada where he had been gainfully employed.

While the earlier reasons declined to determine arrears of spousal support, the court clarified the start date for interim payments.

Interim spousal support was fixed at $1,300 per month beginning July 1, 2013.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after temporarily moving to France so their sons could attend a soccer academy.

The father refused to return to Ontario as agreed and sought interim child and spousal support.

The mother brought a motion to sever the divorce claim.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant the divorce and order corollary relief, as both parties remained ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The court imputed an annual income of $50,000 to the father, noting his reduced income in France was self-imposed, and ordered the mother to pay interim child and spousal support based on the imputed income.