Misha Leslie

This is an appeal in a protracted family law matter.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's orders regarding supervised parenting time, beneficial ownership of Universal Wealth Assets Ltd. (UWA), support payable, and a broad restraining order.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal the trial judge's costs award of $950,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's findings regarding parenting time, support, or the restraining order.

While the declaration of UWA ownership was found to be made without jurisdiction as it was not sought as relief, this did not impact the case's outcome.

Leave to appeal costs was denied, as the high award was justified by the appellant's misconduct, fraudulent activity, and bad faith throughout the litigation.

The applicant sought over $1 million in costs on a full-indemnity basis following a 12-day trial where she was largely successful.

The respondent conceded costs but argued for a lower amount of $350,000.

The court found the respondent engaged in bad faith and unreasonable conduct, including fraudulent transfer of shares and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court adjusted the applicant's requested costs for duplicative and excessive billing by some firms but ultimately awarded $950,000, finding it proportionate and reasonable given the respondent's conduct and the complexity of the litigation.

This appeal concerned a dispute between former spouses over an Ontario condominium property.

The appellant argued the respondent's claim was a statute-barred equalization claim under the Family Law Act, and that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or the matter was res judicata due to prior Saudi Arabian annulment proceedings.

The respondent asserted a resulting or constructive trust claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction as Saudi Arabian courts declined jurisdiction over foreign property and their annulment proceedings did not resolve property issues.

The court further held that the claim was a distinct equitable trust claim, not an equalization claim, and therefore the ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied, not the two-year period under the Family Law Act.

The appeal and a motion for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought child support, retroactive spousal support, and supervised parenting time.

The central issue was determining the respondent's income, which the applicant alleged was hidden in a complex web of international corporations, including one fraudulently transferred to her name.

The court found the respondent was the beneficial owner of the corporations, imputed his income at approximately $7 million annually, and ordered $20,000 per month in both child and spousal support.

The court also ordered supervised parenting time due to the respondent's history of deceit and the risk of child abduction to India or the UAE, which are not signatories to the Hague Convention.

In the midst of a family law trial, the respondent husband objected to the applicant wife's attempt to cross-examine him on police occurrence reports and title documents that had not been previously disclosed.

The court found that the wife's late production of these documents amounted to trial by ambush and created unfairness for the husband, violating the fundamental principle of early and complete disclosure in family law.

To remedy the unfairness, the court halted the cross-examination on the new documents and ordered a revised trial schedule, requiring the wife to testify first to establish the admissibility of the documents and allowing the husband an opportunity to review them and be properly examined.

This decision concerns the quantum of costs awarded to the applicant mother following a two-day trial for child support.

The trial determined the father's income for support and his undue hardship claim, with the mother being successful.

The court reviewed the modern purposes of costs, including indemnification, encouraging settlement, discouraging inappropriate behaviour, and ensuring justice.

The father's conduct, which included disputing paternity without follow-through, delaying disclosure, lack of forthrightness, and unreasonable positions on support and undue hardship, was heavily criticized as flagrant, reckless, and profoundly irresponsible.

Despite the father's plea for sympathy, the court found his behaviour warranted a costs award.

The court fixed costs at $9,000, the amount claimed by the mother, finding it fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the father's conduct and the mother's reasonable offer to settle.

The applicant mother sought child support for the parties' four children.

The respondent father, who has eleven children in total, claimed he was earning a low income after quitting his job to start a business and sought a reduction in support due to undue hardship based on his obligations to his other children.

The court found the father intentionally under-employed, drew adverse inferences from his failure to disclose financial information, and imputed income to him based on past earnings and bank deposits.

The court dismissed the father's undue hardship claim, finding he failed to prove exceptional hardship or that he actually paid support for his other children.

The father was ordered to pay table child support based on the imputed incomes.

The applicant sought spousal support, claiming the parties lived in a conjugal relationship for six years.

The respondent denied they were spouses, asserting the applicant was an unwelcome guest who refused to leave and became violent.

The court applied the Molodowich criteria and found the parties did not live in a conjugal relationship, dismissing the spousal support claim.

Additionally, the court dismissed a preliminary motion to initialize the parties' names and granted the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, barring her from instituting further proceedings against him without leave.