Richard Niman

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for reunification therapy between herself and the parties' 15-year-old daughter, C, with the respondent covering expenses.

The court, applying the five-factor test from Leelaratna v. Leelaratna, dismissed the motion.

The judge found no compelling expert evidence to support the therapy, noted the interim stage of the proceedings, and emphasized C's views as a mature minor, who was not willing to voluntarily participate at this time.

The court concluded that forcing reunification therapy would not be in C's best interests and preferred an organic approach to mending the relationship.

The Applicant sought to set aside a 2006 separation agreement and requested interim spousal support.

The Respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court dismissed the Respondent's summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of fact requiring a trial regarding non-disclosure, unconscionability, duress, and undue influence concerning the separation agreement.

The Applicant's motion for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice due to significant delay and lack of assets to repay if the agreement is upheld.

The court ordered a joint settlement/trial management conference to expedite a trial date.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's answer, prevent further court orders, obtain directions regarding discovery evidence use between related civil and family proceedings, and appoint an expert to value the respondent's corporate shares and income.

The respondent cross-moved to add family members as parties and compel their disclosure/questioning, and for general disclosure from the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests to strike pleadings and prevent further orders, and the respondent's requests to add parties and compel non-party disclosure.

The court granted, by consent, the use of civil discovery evidence in the family case, ordered an expert income report for the respondent, and ordered specific financial disclosure from the applicant.

The applicant sought an urgent order to compel the respondent's attendance for cross-examination on an affidavit, following the respondent's refusal to attend due to the applicant's intention to have an expert assist counsel.

The court addressed the respondent's unilateral refusal to attend and the issue of whether leave is required for an expert to assist counsel at an out-of-court examination.

The court found that counsel do not need leave to bring assistants, including experts, to examinations, and that the onus to exclude such individuals lies with the party alleging prejudice.

The respondent's motion to exclude the expert was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to attend cross-examination.

The applicant sought temporary and retroactive spousal support, full financial disclosure, and permission to retain a financial expert.

The respondent opposed, arguing a settlement conference was set and the applicant had withdrawn significant funds, seeking termination or nominal spousal support.

The court granted interim monthly and retroactive lump sum spousal support to the applicant, ordered full financial disclosure from the respondent, and permitted the applicant to retain an expert.

The respondent's requests to terminate or reduce support were denied due to his failure to provide disclosure and concerns about his financial transparency.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The Applicant Wife brought a motion seeking spousal and child support, interim disbursements, and costs.

The parties agreed on entitlement to compensatory spousal and child support, disputing only the quantum.

The court determined the Respondent's income for support purposes, including bonuses and benefits, and found the Applicant entitled to share in post-separation income increases.

The court ordered uncharacterized interim support of $60,000 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2022, and dismissed the motion for interim disbursements, finding the Applicant would have sufficient funds from the retroactive support.

The applicant father sought to review and terminate spousal support and adjust child support pursuant to a 2012 Separation Agreement.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in support to 2013, alleging the father hid income from the sale of his business.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father and denied the retroactive claim due to the mother's failure to give effective notice.

The court imputed $390,000 in annual income to the mother, finding she was intentionally underemployed and failed to utilize her substantial investment portfolio to generate income, despite her obligations under the Separation Agreement.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate after one additional year, and child support was adjusted prospectively based on the parties' current incomes.

The parties disputed the costs of motions regarding their children's school enrollment, in which the applicant was successful.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably by unilaterally enrolling the children in a different school and refusing to adhere to their prior educational plan.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs because the applicant refused to participate in mediation/arbitration.

The court found neither party's conduct warranted a departure from partial indemnity costs.

The applicant was awarded $9,033.00 in costs, payable upon the resolution of the remaining issues or the sale of the family residence.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support and interim disbursements following the breakdown of a 23-year traditional marriage.

The court imputed an income of $0 to the applicant and determined the respondent's income for support purposes to be over $2 million, adding back personal expenses paid by his corporations (including significant auto racing expenses for their son) and a portion of pre-tax corporate income.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $45,000 per month and a further interim disbursement of $100,000 to allow the applicant to fund her litigation and expert fees.

Following the separation of a common-law couple, a dispute arose over the ownership of their dog.

The applicant, who had adopted the dog, paid for most of its expenses, and was listed as the owner on all documentation, sought a declaration of ownership and the return of the dog after the respondent took the dog from the street.

The respondent claimed joint ownership or, alternatively, a constructive trust and a shared residential schedule.

The court found that the applicant was the sole lawful owner based on financial contributions, documentation, and primary caregiving, and declined to impose a constructive trust or shared custody arrangement for policy reasons.

The appellant mother challenged the Ontario Superior Court's jurisdiction over her youngest child, who was born in the U.S. and had never been to Canada, in the context of temporary parenting orders.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding of jurisdiction, holding that the Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Divorce Act because the father was ordinarily resident in Ontario.

Furthermore, the mother had attorned to the court's jurisdiction by actively participating in the merits of the underlying motions without formally challenging jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs due to the mother's reliance on public assistance.

The parties returned to court to address temporary parenting arrangements and the appointment of a section 30 assessor.

The father and paternal grandparents sought expanded, in-person parenting time during the summer, while the mother opposed in-person visits and requested that the assessment be conducted entirely virtually.

The court found that virtual visits had been positive and ordered the mother to travel to Ottawa with the children for the summer to facilitate graduated in-person visits.

The court also appointed the father's proposed assessor, requiring in-person observation visits due to the complex family dynamics and allegations of domestic violence.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for interim spousal support and disclosure of cryptocurrency holdings.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found the applicant beat her offer regarding spousal support and met her offer regarding native file format disclosure.

The applicant was awarded costs of $104,533 on a substantial recovery basis.

The corporate respondents were successful on a discrete issue regarding a server and were awarded costs of $12,600 on a partial indemnity basis, to be paid from the applicant's costs award.

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of a lawyer's file, arguing she had an explicit or implicit solicitor-client relationship with him, or alternatively, that the respondents waived privilege.

The lawyer had acted for the respondent and the corporate respondents during a period when the parties were allegedly involved in a joint family venture involving cryptocurrency.

The court found the applicant failed to establish a solicitor-client relationship, as the few documents she relied on were insufficient to show she was led to believe he was her lawyer.

The court also found no evidence that the respondents waived privilege.

Although the motion was dismissed, the court struck significant portions of the respondent's affidavit for relying on inadmissible hearsay in breach of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased and unsupervised parenting time with the parties' young child.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim spousal and child support.

The mother alleged a history of severe domestic violence and raised concerns about a potential murder-suicide, arguing that the father's parenting time must remain supervised.

The court found that while there was some evidentiary basis for the abuse allegations, there was no evidence that the father posed a risk to the child.

The court ordered a gradual transition from third-party supervision to supervision by the paternal grandmother, and then to unsupervised parenting time of 30 hours per week.

On the cross-motion, the court found the mother was entitled to interim support and ordered the father to pay $1,739 monthly in spousal support and $855 monthly in child support based on his 2018 income of $93,035, declining to impute higher income to him or any income to the mother at this interim stage.

Following a long motion regarding temporary parenting, support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondent wife was largely successful, having obtained primary residence, exclusive possession, and temporary support.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the wife's offers were closer to the final order.

The court also found the applicant husband acted unreasonably by refusing to vacate the matrimonial home despite having alternative accommodation.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $19,200 in costs.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that the parties separated on August 5, 2018, and an order dismissing the responding party's claims for spousal support.

The court found that the parties separated on February 20, 2019, based on the objective evidence of their continued relationship and attempts at reconciliation.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding spousal support, holding that support issues should be determined at trial alongside property and equalization issues to avoid inconsistent findings and ensure a comprehensive analysis.

The applicant husband brought a motion seeking the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, an equal parenting schedule, a custody and access assessment, and to pay $5,000 per month in voluntary support.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion seeking temporary exclusive possession of the home, primary residence of the children, and $10,000 per month in uncharacterized support.

The court ordered a section 30 assessment due to the high conflict and the children's behavioural issues.

The court granted the wife temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and primary residence of the children, finding it was in their best interests to maintain stability.

The husband's motion for the immediate sale of the home was dismissed.

The husband was ordered to pay $7,200 per month in temporary undifferentiated support.

The wife was largely successful on a motion for interim disbursements under the OBCA, temporary spousal support, and further financial disclosure.

Both parties sought costs of the motion.

The court found the wife was the successful party and that the husband's behavior regarding disclosure was unreasonable.

After considering the parties' offers to settle and the proportionality of the fees, the court awarded the wife costs of $97,523.88, representing 65% of her actual costs.

The costs were ordered to be paid equally by the husband personally and the corporations he controls.

The moving party wife sought interim costs and disbursements of $500,000 to fund her family law and oppression remedy claims against the responding party husband, who controlled the family's closely-held corporations.

She also sought temporary spousal support and an order compelling the husband to answer undertakings and refusals from his questioning.

The court awarded $250,000 in interim costs under the OBCA as an advance against her shareholdings, finding her oppression claim had sufficient merit and she lacked liquid resources.

The court also ordered the husband to pay $3,000 per month in temporary spousal support to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes, and compelled him to answer the majority of the outstanding undertakings and refusals.