Robert M. Halpern

This appeal concerns a family law dispute involving claims for unjust enrichment arising from a joint family venture and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the trial judge’s award of $3,000,000 in damages for unjust enrichment, $365,624 in lump sum spousal support, and $475,000 in costs to the respondent, Katherine Ann Mullin.

The court found that the trial judge properly applied the law regarding unjust enrichment and joint family ventures, and that the evidence supported the findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The decision concerns a motion by Cornel Brenninkmeyer to vary a temporary consent order regarding uncharacterized support payments to Susan (Sam) Makepeace.

The court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances, hardship, urgency, and whether the moving party came to court with clean hands.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a reduction in support payments, but did not find clear hardship.

The order allows for further reduction if the trial is further delayed.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Respondent (Mother) was largely successful on parenting issues and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs, arguing her pre-motion proposals constituted valid offers to settle under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant (Father) contended these proposals were not Rule 18 offers as they predated his motion.

The court found that pre-motion proposals can indeed be valid offers to settle for cost purposes, as Rule 18 allows offers "even before the case has started." The court awarded the Respondent $44,500 in full recovery costs, considering the Applicant's conduct, including attacking the Respondent's mental health and attempting to admit inadmissible surreptitious recordings.

The Applicant sought orders for a significant distribution from the net proceeds of sale of a jointly held property and substantial interim legal fees and disbursements.

The Respondent opposed, proposing a smaller, equal distribution of proceeds and challenging the quantum of interim fees.

The court ordered an equal distribution of $250,000 to each party from the sale proceeds and significantly reduced the Applicant's requested interim fees, ordering the Respondent to pay $725,000 for the Applicant's future litigation expenses.

The court found the Applicant's claims for spousal support and equalization had merit, but emphasized the need for reasonableness in fee requests and the complexity of financial disclosure.

This is a motion for an interim parenting schedule concerning two children, aged nine and six.

The Applicant Father sought equal parenting time (2-2-5-5 schedule), while the Respondent Mother sought a 60/40 split in her favour (6 nights with Father, 8 nights with Mother every two weeks), along with a mutual right of refusal.

The court found the Mother to be the primary caregiver based on detailed evidence and third-party affidavits, contrasting with the Father's less particularized assertions.

Considering the children's best interests, their strong attachment to the Mother, and the Mother's primary caregiving role, the court granted the Mother's proposed 60/40 parenting schedule on a temporary basis, along with exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the Father on consent.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleadings for failure to pay a costs order and sought a declaration that his disclosure was complete.

The applicant sought an adjournment of an upcoming long motion regarding spousal support.

The court dismissed the motion to strike because the costs were paid prior to the hearing, and dismissed the request for a declaration as the outstanding disclosure was irrelevant to the upcoming support motion.

However, the court denied the applicant's request for an adjournment, finding it to be a delay tactic, and ordered the long motion to proceed peremptorily.

Following a trial on property and spousal support where the applicant was substantially successful, the applicant sought costs of $848,408.89.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to make proper disclosure, which triggered full recovery costs under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed the costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $475,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

This endorsement addresses multiple procedural issues in a family law case, including outstanding disclosure, scheduling of a long motion for spousal support, severing the divorce from corollary issues, and costs for settlement conferences.

The court found the respondent in breach of a disclosure order and ordered costs against him.

The court also granted the respondent's motion to sever the divorce, finding no evidence of prejudice to the applicant.

Significant costs were awarded against the applicant for wasting court time and the respondent's time during settlement conferences by not being prepared to sign an agreement she had negotiated.

The Applicant sought monetary damages for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture, an order for no equalization payment, and a lump sum spousal support payment.

The Respondent opposed these claims.

The court found that the Applicant had established unjust enrichment within a joint family venture due to her contributions to the Respondent's business (GS Medical) and household, and her corresponding deprivation (giving up her career, underpaid/unpaid labor).

The court also found the Applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, noting the luxurious lifestyle during cohabitation and the Applicant's economic disadvantage.

Due to the Respondent's lack of financial disclosure, adverse inferences were drawn regarding the value of his business.

The court awarded the Applicant $3,000,000 for unjust enrichment and $365,624.00 net of tax for lump sum spousal support, plus prejudgment interest.

The divorce application was granted.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion where the respondent sought to introduce issues regarding a joint venture, a mortgage renewal, and the distribution of trust funds.

The applicant was successful in opposing the joint venture issue, while the respondent was successful on the mortgage renewal issue.

The court found that both parties had taken unreasonable positions on the issues they lost.

Given the divided success, the court declined to award costs to either party and cautioned them against taking unreasonable positions that hinder the resolution of the family law dispute.

In an ongoing family law dispute, the court addressed several issues regarding the court-ordered sale of eight properties.

The respondent brought a motion to vary the order to sell the properties, arguing they were no longer required to pay the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, citing the respondent's continued obstructive conduct and the uncertainty of receivership costs and tax liabilities.

The court also established a mechanism for the applicant to obtain vesting orders if the respondent obstructed the sales, directed a trial of an issue regarding the validity of third-party mortgages, and refused to release sale proceeds to the respondent's company until the applicant was fully paid.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for interim disbursements, the respondent sought costs of $41,598.46 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant proposed costs of $7,199 payable in the cause.

The court found the respondent's costs excessive, reduced the hours claimed, and determined that the respondent's offer to settle did not attract Rule 18 consequences.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable within 30 days.

The applicant wife brought a motion for contempt sentencing and the appointment of an investigative receiver following the respondent husband's deliberate and flagrant failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

The respondent brought a motion to adjourn the sentencing and to sell certain properties.

The court dismissed the adjournment, fined the respondent $50,000 for contempt, and appointed an investigative receiver over his personal and corporate assets to determine his true financial circumstances.

The court also ordered the sale of several properties to fund the receivership and satisfy outstanding court orders, piercing the corporate veil to do so.

In a high-net-worth family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in civil contempt for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the respondent engaged in a deliberate and continuous course of conduct to delay disclosure, hide assets through corporate restructuring, and dissipate funds despite a non-dissipation order.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent wilfully and flagrantly breached the clear and unambiguous disclosure orders.

The respondent was found in contempt, with a sentencing hearing to be scheduled.

Following a motion for interim spousal support and disbursements, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought full-indemnity costs of $57,457.39, alleging bad faith by the respondent for failing to provide timely financial disclosure.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and that the respondent exhibited an element of bad faith regarding financial disclosure.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $46,000.

The mother appealed an interim order that temporarily varied a final parenting schedule to a week-about arrangement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to apply the stringent test required for an interim variation of a final parenting order.

The motion judge improperly conflated the best interests of the child analysis with the requirement to find compelling or exceptional circumstances to disturb the status quo on an interim basis.

The interim variation was set aside and the father's motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for interim disbursements, temporary spousal support, and other relief in a high net worth family law proceeding.

The respondent had repeatedly failed to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure regarding his complex corporate holdings and real estate properties.

The court found the applicant was in need of funds to obtain her own valuations and pay legal fees.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $1,500,000, comprising $500,000 for interim disbursements, $500,000 for temporary spousal support, and $500,000 for home renovations.

The applicant was also awarded full recovery costs of $160,118.07 due to the respondent's non-compliance.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and interim disbursements.

The parties were in a six-year marriage and the respondent husband is a high-income earner residing in Germany with significant wealth.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for high-income earners, imputing an annual investment income of over $4 million to the respondent based on a 12.3% rate of return.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a lump-sum of $326,315 in uncharacterized interim spousal support and $186,000 in interim disbursements, noting the latter had already been satisfied by a prior without-prejudice payment.

The respondent husband brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant wife brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession, temporary spousal support, child support for three children (two adopted, one biological adult son), and an advance on equalization or interim disbursements.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims for exclusive possession, ongoing child support for all three children, and interim disbursements/equalization advance.

However, the court granted the applicant temporary spousal support of $5,000 per month and ordered an immediate payment of $100,000 to the applicant from the net proceeds of the matrimonial home sale, with a similar amount to the respondent, and the balance held in trust.

Retroactivity for support was reserved for trial.

The applicant sought interim interim retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and an advance on her equalization payment for legal fees.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce from corollary relief.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $250,000 and attributed no income to the applicant, ordering $9,500 per month in spousal support retroactively from January 1, 2018, with credit for amounts already paid.

The request for an advance payment of costs was denied due to insufficient evidence of necessity and the applicant's financial resources.

The court granted the severance of the divorce, finding no legal disadvantage to the applicant.