Preet Kaler

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $4,448 to the responding party.

The applicant husband commenced a divorce application in Ontario while residing in India.

The respondent wife, who had never lived in Canada, subsequently commenced divorce and support proceedings in India.

The respondent brought a motion to stay or dismiss the Ontario application for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted the motion, finding that neither party had been habitually resident in Ontario for at least one year prior to the application, as required by the Divorce Act.

The court also held that the respondent could not attorn to a jurisdiction the court did not possess, and that under the Family Law Act, the parties' property rights were governed by the law of India, their last common habitual residence.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a purported settlement agreement regarding the buyout of the matrimonial home and spousal support, allegedly reached via email exchange of draft minutes following a settlement conference.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-motion for partition and sale of the home.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the parties had a meeting of the minds and intended to be bound prior to signing formal minutes.

The cross-motion for partition and sale was also dismissed, as selling the home would prejudice the applicant's trial claim to purchase the respondent's interest.

This family law trial addressed issues of joint versus sole custody for the parties' four-year-old son, past daycare expenses, section 7 expenses, child support arrears, and international travel with the child.

The court granted joint custody, finding that despite past disagreements, the parents demonstrated sufficient cooperation and ability to prioritize the child's best interests.

The father was ordered to pay past daycare expenses and child support arrears.

The father's request to travel internationally with the child was denied due to potential arrest in India, but with leave to reapply.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The court found that the respondent had intentionally depleted family assets, failed to provide financial disclosure, and acted in bad faith by incurring reckless debts.

Applying section 5(6) of the Family Law Act, the court ordered an unequal division of net family property, vesting the matrimonial home entirely in the applicant and ordering the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $184,702.70.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking sole custody of his son, a non-communication order between his son and daughter, mandatory family therapy, and a finding of contempt against the respondent mother for allegedly breaching a 2013 access order.

The court found that the breakdown in the father-son relationship stemmed from a misunderstanding over a holiday access schedule, rather than deliberate subversion by the mother.

The court dismissed the contempt motion and the request for sole custody, finding a change in residence was not in the child's best interests.

However, the court ordered the parties to engage in reunification therapy and share the initial costs, with the father permitted to resume access once recommended by the therapist.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order turning selected provisions of the respondent’s offer to settle into a court order after purporting to accept only the portions relating to property issues.

The respondent argued that the offer was a global offer and that partial acceptance constituted a counter-offer rather than a valid acceptance.

The court held that Rule 18(13)(a) of the Family Law Rules does not alter the common law principle that acceptance of an offer must be unconditional and complete.

Because the applicant attempted to accept only portions of the offer without evidence of severability, there was no valid acceptance and therefore no enforceable settlement.

The motion for judgment enforcing the purported acceptance was dismissed.

The parties settled a family law dispute at a pre‑trial, leaving only the issue of costs for determination.

The issues in the proceeding included custody, access, child support, section 7 expenses, health insurance coverage, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant had served an offer to settle that substantially formed the basis of the final settlement, while the respondent’s offer was served less than seven days before trial and was non‑severable except for equalization.

The court held that the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent’s late offer had limited significance.

Although the applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $15,000, the court fixed costs at $9,000 payable forthwith by the respondent.

Following competing family law motions for spousal support and child support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party seeking spousal support was unsuccessful, while the opposing party succeeded on a cross-motion for child support.

Applying s. 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs.

After reviewing counsel’s time and the steps taken in the proceeding, the court found the claimed time reasonable and awarded partial indemnity costs.