Richard Niman

The Applicant brought an urgent motion seeking a temporary parenting order for her two young children, requesting primary care and specific access for the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed, raising concerns about the Applicant's mental health and parenting ability, initially seeking limited/supervised access, and later proposing a 50/50 schedule.

The court found the Respondent's credibility deeply flawed due to inconsistencies and strategic use of criminal charges.

The court granted the Applicant's request, returning the children to her primary care, citing the children's best interests, the pre-separation status quo, and the Respondent's failure to prioritize the children's needs post-separation.

The Applicant's request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed without prejudice.

The Applicant sought orders to vary a previous order to allow virtual showings and videographer access for the sale of the matrimonial home, and for carriage of sale if the Respondent did not comply.

The Respondent opposed these requests and sought to appoint co-agents for the sale.

The court granted the Applicant's request for virtual showings and videographer access with modifications, dismissing the request for carriage of sale.

The Respondent's request for co-agents was dismissed.

The court emphasized adapting marketing strategies to the COVID-19 pandemic while ensuring safety.

The parties, Adam and Amanda Rothschild, sought an urgent case conference to resolve disputes arising from their Minutes of Settlement concerning the sale of the matrimonial home.

Key issues included the selection of a listing agent, the listing date, necessary repairs, and the applicant's access to the home, all complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court addressed the interpretation and enforcement of the Minutes of Settlement in light of these unforeseen circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support of $50,000 per month following a short relationship with a high-income respondent earning $2.88 million annually.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for non-compensatory entitlement due to economic dependency created during the relationship.

Noting the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are not presumptive for incomes over $350,000, the court conducted an individualized analysis of the parties' lavish lifestyle and the applicant's short-term needs.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $25,000 per month retroactive to April 1, 2019.

The applicant sought a review of spousal and child support provisions in a separation agreement, arguing the respondent was intentionally underemployed.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed since separation and imputed income to her for support purposes.

The court also confirmed the applicant's income calculation and the 50/50 net disposable income split, and addressed section 7 expenses.

A further review was ordered to determine the duration and basis of spousal support entitlement.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim relief following their separation.

The court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, finding that the applicant's proposed increase in overnight visits was not in the young children's best interests at this time.

The court declined to order a s. 30 assessment due to potential delay.

For interim support, the applicant's income was set at $300,000 based on his expert's report, and the respondent's imputed income was set at $25,000.

The respondent's request for a $108,000 interim disbursement was denied; instead, the court ordered the parties to secure a line of credit against the matrimonial home to fund litigation and private school expenses.

The respondent was granted interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

This family law trial addressed parenting arrangements, a proposed relocation of children to Brussels, child support, spousal support, the parties' separation/valuation date, and equalization payments.

The court denied the respondent's request to relocate the children, finding it not in their best interests to leave Toronto where they were settled and had strong bonds with both parents.

A shared parenting schedule was established.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to intentional underemployment and ordered prospective child and spousal support, but no retroactive support.

The separation date was fixed as February 26, 2017, and an equalization payment was ordered, with prejudgment interest accruing from the date of the final order.

The applicant brought a motion to change a court-ordered schedule for questioning and a settlement conference, citing commitments to a national project and a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient specific details for her commitments, had previously managed her project and litigation simultaneously, and that the application was time-sensitive due to the respondent's unemployment and the applicant's history of delaying proceedings.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to court-ordered timetables to ensure the just and timely resolution of cases under the Family Law Rules.

The respondent husband brought a motion for interim costs of $125,000 under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules to defend against the applicant wife's claim for an annulment and to advance his own claim to enforce their marriage agreement.

The applicant, who has a very high net worth, conceded the merit of the respondent's case and the reasonableness of the fees, but argued he could fund his own litigation.

The court found the respondent was unemployed, had significant debts, and could not afford his legal fees.

The motion was granted, and the applicant was ordered to pay $125,000 as an advance on costs, plus $10,000 for the costs of the motion.

The applicant brought a motion for further financial disclosure and leave to question the respondent in advance of the respondent's scheduled motion for interim disbursements under Family Law Rule 24(12).

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was contrary to a prior case management order that set a strict timetable and directed that disclosure disputes be handled at the hearing of the main motion.

Furthermore, the court held that the requested disclosure was excessive, unnecessary, and disproportionate to the issues raised on an interim costs motion, and the applicant failed to meet the test for questioning under Rule 20(5).

Following a lengthy motion concerning interim child support, spousal support, and interim costs in a high‑income family law dispute, both parties sought costs.

The court assessed success in light of the motion result and competing offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

Although the applicant obtained retroactive interim child support, the respondent was found to have been more successful overall because the ordered support was lower than his offer and the applicant’s claims for interim spousal support and interim costs were dismissed.

The court considered proportionality, counsel rates, time spent, and the financial circumstances of the parties.

Exercising its discretion under the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the applicant to pay partial costs to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, an order compelling the respondent to refinance the mortgage, financial disclosure, and undifferentiated interim child and spousal support of $10,000 per month.

The respondent brought a cross‑motion seeking an order for sale of the matrimonial home.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel a party to refinance a mortgage where success depends on a third‑party lender’s approval, and found insufficient evidence that exclusive possession was in the child’s best interests.

However, due to incomplete and inconsistent financial disclosure from the respondent, the court relied on a prior consent arrangement between the parties and ordered interim undifferentiated support of $10,000 monthly along with further disclosure obligations.

The applicant sought interim child support of $50,000 per month, interim spousal support of $50,000 per month, and interim costs in litigation against a high‑income professional athlete earning approximately $12 million USD annually.

The court considered the Child Support Guidelines and jurisprudence on high‑income payors, including the presumption of table support and discretion under s. 4 where income exceeds $150,000.

The applicant’s proposed budget included a substantial monthly savings component intended to fund future housing and long‑term financial security for the child.

The court held that on an interim basis the respondent’s proposal of $28,000 per month adequately covered the child’s current expenses pending trial, while the issues of savings and discretionary spending should be fully examined at trial.

The court found the evidence regarding cohabitation and permanence of the relationship highly conflicting and declined to order interim spousal support, and also declined interim litigation funding due to insufficient evidence of current legal debt.

The applicant brought a motion seeking substantial interim child support, retroactive child support, spousal support, and interim costs arising from a relationship that produced a child.

The respondent acknowledged paternity but disputed that the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act and sought an adjournment to permit questioning regarding the applicant’s claimed budget and the nature of the relationship.

The court granted the adjournment but imposed financial terms.

It ordered interim child support of $25,000 per month retroactive to the commencement of the claim and continuing until further order or year‑end.

The court rejected both the applicant’s request for $50,000 per month and the respondent’s proposed $15,000 per month as inappropriate in the circumstances.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction and sentence arising from an incident where he retained half of a quantity of marijuana that had been turned over to him while on duty during an internal police investigation.

He argued that the police investigation constituted entrapment and amounted to impermissible random virtue testing under the principles set out in R v Barnes.

The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion based on prior information suggesting chronic marijuana use by the appellant and that the reverse sting operation was a legitimate investigative step.

The court concluded there was no entrapment or abuse of process and upheld both the conviction and sentence, emphasizing the breach of trust inherent in the conduct of a serving police officer.

The moving party sought production of documents and information held by a court‑appointed receiver in connection with an investigation related to alleged securities fraud proceedings before the Ontario Securities Commission.

The court considered whether the principles governing third‑party production established in R. v. O'Connor and R. v. McNeil applied to records held by a receiver acting as an officer of the court.

It held that although receivers generally are not required to disclose investigative materials beyond their reports, that protection cannot override an accused’s constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

Applying the O'Connor framework, the court required the moving party to demonstrate that the requested records were “likely relevant.” Only limited categories of documents met that threshold, including certain materials from lawyers, the accountant, and recovered emails, while most requests were rejected as speculative fishing expeditions.