Rhea Kamin

In this uncontested family law trial, the court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence of the child, a final restraining order against the respondent, retroactive and prospective child support with imputed income, section 7 expense contributions, occupation rent, defamation damages, and restrictions on future proceedings.

The respondent's pleadings had been struck due to his pattern of non-compliance with court orders, abusive and threatening behaviour toward the applicant and child, and abuse of the court process.

The respondent engaged in domestic violence, property destruction, harassment through social media, and defamatory posts.

The court found the respondent's conduct reprehensible and relentless, warranting comprehensive protective orders and financial remedies.

The court granted the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to repeated breaches of court orders, failure to pay costs, and ongoing inappropriate conduct.

The respondent was precluded from participating further in the proceedings, and the matter was set down for an uncontested trial.

The court found the respondent's allegations of judicial bias to be without merit and determined that all lesser remedies had been exhausted.

This case involved a dispute over the accuracy and enforceability of Minutes of Settlement concerning the equalization payment for two properties.

The applicant husband sought to enforce the Minutes as written, which stipulated a $520,000 payment from the respondent wife.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for rectification, arguing the amount was a mistake and should have been $260,000 (half the agreed difference in value).

The court found the Minutes ambiguous and that there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of the payment amount.

Consequently, the applicant's motion to enforce was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-motion for rectification was also dismissed due to a lack of a prior definite agreement.

The court set aside the disputed Minutes of Settlement and confirmed the validity of an earlier set of Minutes.

The applicant brought a motion seeking disclosure orders and interim payment for legal costs and an income valuation report.

The court found the applicant's claim of urgency unfounded, noting that delays were partly attributable to the respondent's complex financial holdings and the need to obtain records from third parties.

While acknowledging some outstanding disclosure, the court observed the respondent's cooperation.

The court ordered specific disclosure, including a corporate structure chart, and an interim payment of $35,000 to the applicant for accounting/valuation costs, applying the criteria from Stuart v. Stuart.

All other relief sought by the applicant was dismissed.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party due to mixed success and the precipitous nature of the motion.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion decision concerning parenting arrangements for a 14-month-old child.

The maternal grandparents were granted temporary custody with limited supervised access for the parents.

The maternal grandparents sought costs of $30,932.17, while the parents requested no costs or costs fixed at $5,628.05.

The court found the maternal grandparents were successful parties entitled to costs but reduced the award significantly due to excessive time claims, the parents' limited financial circumstances, and concerns that the claimed amount could be used to intimidate the parents from pursuing legitimate positions.

The court fixed costs at $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $250 per month commencing August 1, 2018.