Murray Ephraim Lightman

The applicant sought costs arising from a temporary motion and cross-motion concerning parenting arrangements and child support.

The applicant sought $9,288.40 on a partial indemnity basis to the date of her offer to settle and on a full indemnity basis thereafter.

The respondent opposed the costs award and proposed $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis with divided success.

The court found the applicant was largely successful on parenting issues, that her offer to settle was reasonable and severable, and that the respondent's behaviour was unreasonable, particularly his pre-litigation conduct and secret recordings.

The court awarded the full amount requested.

Motion and cross-motion regarding parenting arrangements for a child born in 2013 from a brief casual relationship.

The respondent sought temporary joint custody with primary residence and specified access.

The applicant sought sole custody with primary residence and specified access.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, finding that joint custody was not workable due to lack of communication and cooperation between the parties, and that the respondent had engaged in parental alienation and manipulation of the child.

The court also addressed evidentiary issues regarding secretly recorded conversations and child statements, and declined to order retroactive child support on a temporary basis.

The respondent father sought an order deeming or converting his response to the applicant mother's motion to change into a proper application for equal parenting time.

The applicant mother opposed the conversion and brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the respondent's custody claims.

The court found that while it had authority under the Family Law Rules to convert or deem pleadings, the criteria for exercising such discretion had not been met because the pleadings were incomplete and would require amendment, thereby creating additional costs, delay, and procedural complexity.

The court denied the conversion request, which resulted in no claims being properly before the court, and therefore dismissed all related motions.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to extend the time to bring a claim for equalization of net family property.

The parties separated in February 2005 after nearly 16 years of marriage.

In October 2007, the appellant signed a separation agreement waiving any right to equalization.

He sought equalization in January 2016, over 11 years after separation and 9 years after the separation agreement.

The parties had previously executed a marriage contract in 1989 that barred equalization claims.

The motion judge found no apparent grounds for relief and refused the extension based on the lengthy delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the motion judge properly applied the statutory test under the Family Law Act and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant sought an order extending the time to bring a claim for equalization of net family property and to set aside a separation agreement.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that there were no apparent grounds to set aside the separation agreement, that the significant delay in bringing the claim was not incurred in good faith, and that no substantial prejudice would result from the delay.

Consequently, the respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment was not addressed.

The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment granting an order for the immediate partition and sale of a jointly-owned property.

The appellant, who had been critically injured in a hammer attack allegedly perpetrated by the respondent, appealed the order.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to address the evidentiary significance of the appellant's affidavit detailing her severe injuries and lack of alternative housing.

The court held that this silence precluded meaningful appellate review of whether the partition and sale would cause hardship amounting to oppression.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order requiring him to pay full table child support despite a separation agreement providing for shared parenting and set-off child support.

The trial judge had concluded that the father did not meet the 40 percent parenting time threshold under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines and ordered full guideline support.

On appeal, the court found there was no evidentiary basis for concluding the father had less than 40 percent parenting time and that the separation agreement provided for equal time.

The appellate court held the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly set aside the parties’ agreement without reasons.

The order was set aside and the parties remained bound by their separation agreement.

A costs decision following a child support application.

The applicant mother sought costs of $33,006.67 after obtaining a decision on September 25, 2012 regarding child support for her son, retroactive support, life insurance coverage, and health/dental plan coverage.

The court found the applicant was successful on the retroactive support issue but unsuccessful on the life insurance claim.

The court rejected allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the respondent father.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 to the applicant, finding this to be a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances, rather than full recovery of actual costs incurred.

The applicant mother sought child support for her child born in 2000, including retroactive support dating back to the child's birth or alternatively to August 2008.

The respondent father had never paid child support and disputed the retroactive claim.

The court applied the framework established in D.B.S. v. T.A.R., considering the reason for delay, conduct of the payor, circumstances of the child, and hardship to the payor.

While the father's failure to pay support was blameworthy, the mother's unreasonable eleven-year delay in seeking support was a significant factor.

The court awarded ongoing child support of $835 monthly, medical/dental coverage, and a limited retroactive award of $14,000 payable in four annual instalments commencing January 1, 2010.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding family property.

The Court of Appeal found that there was a misunderstanding before the lower court and the family property issue had not been finally disposed of.

The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was granted leave to seek to set aside a previously granted stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed an order regarding his income and child support obligations for the year 2004, arguing the application judge failed to properly apply sections 4(b), 7, and 17 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $6,042.00.

The wife appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and the calculation of incomes for special or extraordinary child support expenses under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The husband cross-appealed regarding property taxes on the matrimonial home and the trial costs award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal in part, finding that child support should not be deducted from or added to the parents' incomes when determining s. 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the remainder of the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on the family loan, property taxes, and costs.