Robert M. Halpern

The appellant appealed from an order striking his pleadings and limiting his trial participation rights in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought spousal support and equalization of net family property following a brief marriage.

The appellant failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring disclosure of financial information and answers to undertakings and refusals given during examination.

The motion judge struck the appellant's Answer and imposed restrictions on his participation at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but varied the order to augment the appellant's trial participation rights, permitting him to make an opening statement, cross-examine witnesses, and make closing submissions without requiring leave of the trial judge.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis following a successful motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the respondent's evasive responses and repeated breaches of court orders amounted to bad faith and a deliberate attempt to frustrate the applicant's claims.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $30,539.97, noting that the respondent's conduct justified the higher scale of costs.

The Applicant sought various interim orders including spousal and child support, retroactive support, section 7 expenses, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, payment to a joint line of credit, interim disbursement, sale of a yacht, and a preservation order.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion to strike parts of the Applicant's affidavit and compel undertakings.

The court imputed an income of $300,000 to the Respondent for interim support purposes, declined to impute income to the Applicant, and ordered temporary spousal support of $7,000/month and child support of $2,878/month.

Retroactive support was adjourned to trial.

The court denied the interim disbursement request but ordered the sale of the yacht with net proceeds split equally after paying a loan.

Both parties were ordered to provide outstanding disclosure and undertakings.

A preservation order was continued with an added notice requirement for the Respondent's business shares.

The Respondent's request to strike evidence was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following her success on two motions regarding jurisdiction and the respondent's constitutional challenge based on aboriginal rights.

The applicant claimed $500,000 on a full recovery basis, including a risk premium.

The court rejected the inclusion of a risk premium in family law cases and found the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith.

The court fixed costs at $315,415 and ordered that the costs be designated as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, as the underlying motions were necessary to clear the path for the applicant's support claims.

The applicant brought a family law application seeking custody, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent, a Haudenosaunee person and member of the Six Nations, filed an Amended Answer challenging the court's jurisdiction and the applicability of Ontario family law legislation, asserting an aboriginal right under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 to have the dispute resolved under Haudenosaunee laws and processes.

The applicant moved to strike the Amended Answer and dismiss the constitutional case summarily.

The court held that while conflict of laws principles apply to the jurisdiction analysis, they must be modified to account for aboriginal rights claims.

However, the court struck the Amended Answer in its entirety, finding that it failed to plead the necessary material facts, that the respondent lacked standing to advance a collective right of self-government individually, and that the broad claim of immunity from Ontario family law was not cognizable under s. 35(1) jurisprudence.

The court declared it had jurisdiction to hear the family law issues and dismissed the respondent's motion for a stay of proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for his repeated failure to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The parties separated after a 13-year relationship, and the applicant required corporate and personal financial information to establish her claims for spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the respondent wilfully and deliberately breached previous disclosure orders and failed to answer undertakings from his questioning.

As a result, the court struck the respondent's pleadings, granted the applicant leave to proceed to an uncontested hearing, and ordered the respondent to pay costs on a substantial indemnity scale due to his bad faith conduct.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' one-year-old son from Ontario to California.

The respondent mother argued that the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that returning him would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to alleged abuse.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was California, as it was the only place where both parents lived together with the child, and the father had not consented to a change in residence.

The court also dismissed the mother's Article 13(b) defence, finding insufficient evidence that a return would create an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the child was ordered returned to California, where custody and access issues would be determined.

The appellant husband appealed a motions judge's order increasing spousal support payable to the respondent wife.

The motions judge found a material change in circumstances under s. 17(4) of the Divorce Act due to a significant, unforeseen increase in the appellant's disposable income following an arbitration award.

The Court of Appeal applied the deferential standard of review from Hickey v. Hickey and found no error in the motions judge's application of the Willick test or calculation of support.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondent moved to quash an appeal from an order dismissing a rule 21.01(1)(b) motion to strike a same-sex former partner's spousal support claim.

The underlying action involved a support claim advanced after a long same-sex relationship ended before the legislative amendment to s. 29 of the Family Law Act extending spousal support rights to same-sex couples.

The Court of Appeal held that an order dismissing a motion to strike for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action is interlocutory, regardless of the forcefulness of the motion judge's reasons, because the substantive rights remain to be determined at trial.

The appeal therefore lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal, and was quashed with costs.