Ravital Khardas

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties’ child to the Newmarket jurisdiction and for related parenting relief after the respondent mother unilaterally relocated with the child to Kitchener/Waterloo and enrolled him in a new school without the father's consent.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering the child's primary residence to remain in Newmarket, continued attendance at his former school, and established an equal parenting time schedule.

The court found the mother's allegations of family violence insufficient to justify the relocation at this preliminary stage and emphasized the child's best interests and stability.

Costs were awarded to the father.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking an advance on equalization, interim disbursements, permission to mortgage a property, quantification of a penalty for non-disclosure, and orders compelling compliance with prior court orders.

The applicant husband opposed, arguing the respondent's non-compliance with parenting orders and his own financial difficulties.

The court dismissed the request for an advance on equalization due to significant uncertainty regarding the net family property calculation and property valuations.

However, it granted interim disbursements of $118,000 to the respondent to "level the playing field" for legal and expert fees, allowing the applicant to secure a loan against his unencumbered condominium to satisfy this payment.

The court declined to quantify the penalty or issue new compliance orders, directing these issues to be addressed at a case conference with the assigned case management judge.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $6,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The parties separated after a 23-year marriage during which they worked together in a successful band.

The applicant's health deteriorated due to multiple sclerosis, constituting a material change in circumstances from their separation agreement.

The applicant sought spousal support of approximately $1,400 per month, while the respondent argued for $700, citing the applicant's dissipation of her capital through gambling and poor financial decisions.

The court admitted Facebook receipts showing the applicant's online gambling, imputed $2,000 in investment income to her due to reckless dissipation of assets, and ordered the respondent to pay $1,000 per month in spousal support based on his transitional income and ongoing support of their adult children.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to set aside a final order obtained after an uncontested hearing.

The court found that the applicant’s counsel proceeded with the uncontested trial without notifying opposing counsel despite ongoing correspondence and knowledge that the respondent was represented.

The court held that counsel failed to disclose material procedural background and failed to respond to communications, undermining the fairness of the process.

Applying the principles governing motions to set aside default judgments and considering the integrity of the administration of justice, the court found that the moving party acted promptly, had a valid explanation for the default, and demonstrated an arguable defence.

The final order was set aside and costs were awarded against the applicant.