Renata Kirszbaum

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to decide two post-trial issues: entitlement to $15,000 held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, and entitlement to the contents of a safe.

The court found it had jurisdiction but could not decide the issues on the record before it.

The parties were directed to commence fresh proceedings to resolve these matters.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 20-year marriage.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent gifted the matrimonial home to her, spousal support, and a restraining order.

The respondent sought occupation rent and various deductions from his net family property.

The court found that the transfer of the matrimonial home was not a gift but was done to shield it from creditors, resulting in a resulting trust where the respondent held a one-half beneficial interest.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $368,029.86 and indefinite spousal support.

The claims for a restraining order and occupation rent were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to set aside a prior order that removed a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) from a property and to obtain an interim order prohibiting the property's sale, alleging fraud.

The court dismissed the urgent hearing request and the interim order prohibiting sale.

The judge found no new urgency, no newly discovered evidence, and insufficient cogent evidence to support the fraud allegations.

The court also noted the applicant's long-standing non-compliance with a disclosure order and that the prior order already provided for sale proceeds to be held in trust, mitigating irreparable harm.

The balance of the motion was adjourned.

The respondent mother, who had supervised access to the parties' seven-year-old child, brought a motion for unsupervised access.

The applicant father, who had sole custody, opposed the motion due to the mother's history of severe mental illness, including hospitalizations for schizoaffective disorder.

While the mother provided reports from her treating professionals indicating stability, the court found the evidence lacked sufficient detail regarding her ability to handle stress and her care plan for the child.

The court dismissed the motion for unsupervised access at this time and ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer to provide an independent assessment.

The parties separated and the wife, who suffers from severe mental illness, sought to reconcile out of a delusional fear for her child's safety.

The husband agreed to reconcile only if she signed a Marriage Contract waiving all rights to spousal support and equalization.

The husband failed to disclose his purchase of a property and a significant withdrawal from their joint account.

The court found that the husband exploited the wife's vulnerability, that she signed the contract under duress, and that she did not understand its consequences due to the non-disclosure.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act to set aside the Marriage Contract.

This is a costs decision in a child protection case concerning a motion by the mother for expanded access to two children.

The mother was substantially successful in obtaining a court-ordered schedule for expanded and unsupervised access, though the order included provisos allowing the Children's Aid Society to suspend access if safety concerns arose.

The mother sought costs on a full recovery basis against both the Society and the father.

The court declined to award costs against either party, applying the established principles that child protection cases are exceptions to the presumptive entitlement to costs, and that neither the Society nor parents should be penalized for acting in good faith within the statutory framework.

Father brought a motion to change a temporary care and custody order made on September 29, 2017, seeking to have temporary care and custody of his three children returned to him, or in the alternative, seeking extended unsupervised access.

The children had been placed in the temporary care and custody of a community member (D.S.) due to protection concerns including the father's inappropriate discipline, yelling and swearing at the children, inadequate supervision, domestic conflict, possible substance abuse, and non-cooperation with the child protection society.

The court dismissed the motion for return of placement but granted an increase in access on a gradual basis.

The court found that while the father had made recent positive changes including cooperation with the society, participation in anger management and parenting programs, and positive access visits, the protection concerns remained significant and the children expressed fear of returning to his care and preference to remain with D.S. The court ordered a gradual increase in access with specific terms and conditions, with a return date set for case conference.

The respondent father brought a motion to retroactively terminate child support effective June 1, 2012, arguing the child was no longer a child of the marriage after completing her undergraduate degree.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion to strike the respondent's motion for failure to comply with previous court orders.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to strike.

The court also dismissed the father's motion for retroactive termination to 2012, finding he failed to provide effective notice and delayed seeking a variation while accumulating significant arrears.

On consent, child support was varied to end September 1, 2013.

In a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the respondent father brought a motion for temporary care and custody of his three children.

The applicant society introduced evidence of a positive urine screen test.

The court found the evidence did not meet the threshold of credibility and trustworthiness required by the Act and ordered a voir dire to determine admissibility.

The society subsequently withdrew reliance on the urine screen test results, and the evidence was struck from the record.

This is a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving three children (ages 10, 8, and 6).

The Society sought protection orders based on risk of physical harm.

Following a temporary care and custody hearing on August 10, 2017, the children were placed in the Society's temporary care and custody.

On September 27, 2017, the court heard three motions: the Society's motion to place children with a community member (granted on an unopposed basis), the father's motion for temporary care and custody or expanded access (adjourned), and the mother's motion for specified supervised access (granted).

The endorsement addresses the admissibility of urine analysis evidence the Society sought to introduce regarding the father's alleged substance abuse.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on motions to change child support obligations.

The applicant mother sought costs of $3,786.63 from the respondent father, who argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the mother was the more successful party and entitled to costs.

The father's unreasonable behaviour, including failure to pay child support until just before trial, active avoidance of obligations, deliberate unemployment, and non-reporting of cash income, weighed heavily against him.

The court awarded costs of $2,700 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $75 per month starting January 1, 2018, with acceleration provisions for non-payment of support or costs.

The applicant mother and the City of Toronto (assignee of child support) brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking to increase support based on imputed income of $80,000.

The respondent father sought to rescind arrears accumulated from September 2013 to July 2016, claiming he had no legal work status during that period and therefore could not work.

The court found a change in circumstances based on the unexpected length of time required to obtain a work permit.

The court partially rescinded 15 months of arrears ($2,550) but found the father intentionally unemployed after January 2017 and imputed income at $31,200 until September 2017, then $48,000 thereafter.

The father was ordered to pay child support of $259 monthly until September 2017, then $433 monthly, plus arrears and costs payments.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order dated September 22, 2008, seeking to reduce his monthly child support obligation from $211.00 to $100.00 or eliminate it entirely, claiming unemployment and inability to work due to age and arthritis.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-claim seeking to increase child support retroactively to January 2010, arguing the respondent had undisclosed income based on his ability to finance a $400,000 home and $15,000 vehicle.

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding his financial circumstances to be untrustworthy and determined that income should be imputed to him at $41,913.00 annually.

The court varied the order to increase child support to $378.00 per month retroactive to August 1, 2013, and ordered payment of arrears at $150.00 per month.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by grandparents for temporary access to their 10-year-old grandson.

The grandparents' motion was substantially successful, obtaining access beginning with two 3-hour visits in 2016 and monthly 7-hour day visits starting in January 2017, subject to specified conditions.

The respondent Shelly Blair, the child's custodial caregiver, sought costs of $6,100 against the grandparents and $1,130 against the mother.

The court awarded costs of $3,600 to the grandparents (payable at $300 per month) and $600 to the mother (payable at $50 per month), exercising discretion to discount the full recovery of costs available under the offer to settle rule.

A focused trial concerning access arrangements for a child born in 2009.

The applicant (biological father) sought to terminate or reduce the respondent's (mother) supervised access.

The respondent sought unsupervised access to be gradually increased to alternate weekends and holiday access.

The child was apprehended by the Children's Aid Society in May 2014 and placed in the father's care in October 2014.

The mother had been exercising supervised access at APCO since May 2015.

The court found that while there was a positive attachment between the child and mother, the mother's behaviour during supervised visits remained problematic and not child-focused.

The court ordered continuation of supervised access with conditions requiring the mother to undergo psychiatric assessment and counselling before any future variation of the order.

Following an earlier endorsement awarding substantial indemnity costs, the court determined the allocation and quantum of costs arising from a family law motion.

The court considered whether the respondent’s counsel should personally bear responsibility under rule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules for unnecessarily increasing litigation costs.

The judge found that both the respondent and his lawyer engaged in unreasonable conduct that created unnecessary legal work for the applicant.

The applicant’s bill of costs was accepted in full.

Responsibility for the costs was divided equally between the respondent and his counsel.

A focused trial was held regarding custody of a six-year-old child.

The applicant father served trial affidavits within ordered timelines.

The respondent mother did not file affidavits and advised on May 21, 2015 that she would not oppose the father's requests for custody and government documentation, with some restrictions on international travel.

Final orders granted custody to the father, authority to obtain government documentation without respondent consent, and permission to travel with the child outside Canada for vacation purposes.

The father sought costs of the focused hearing.

The court found the father was the successful party and that the mother acted unreasonably in requiring the father to prepare for trial.

Costs were awarded to the father.

The applicant sought temporary child support for two children (ages 15 and 9) based on an imputed income of $25,000 per annum for the respondent, with support to commence November 1, 2011.

The respondent, who was on Ontario Works, argued he could not afford to pay and that no income should be imputed.

He also argued he should not pay support for the older child as she was not in school.

The court found the respondent was intentionally unemployed, rejected his arguments regarding the daughter's entitlement to support, and imputed income of $25,000 per annum.

The court ordered child support of $375 per month for November and December 2011, changing to $373 per month from January 1, 2012, with arrears to be paid at $75 per month starting June 1, 2012.