Ronald P. Kaufman

The Applicant sought an adjournment of a Trial Scheduling Conference (TSC) and leave for a second Settlement Conference, citing outstanding disclosure and the need for expert reports.

The Respondent opposed, seeking dismissal of the Applicant's requests, costs, and orders regarding travel consent and in-person questioning.

The court dismissed both the Applicant's and Respondent's 14B motions, emphasizing the parties' history of non-compliance with court orders and the Family Law Rules.

The TSC was ordered to proceed as scheduled, and no costs were awarded due to both parties' conduct.

The applicant and respondent each filed a 14B motion seeking the release of funds from the sale of their matrimonial home and reimbursement for renovation costs.

A dispute arose over the exact amount of reimbursement and the need for documentary proof, despite an earlier agreement capping the reimbursement at $7,500.

The court found the litigation of a minor dispute unnecessary and emphasized the parties' and counsels' duty to promote the objectives of the Family Law Rules.

The motions for costs were dismissed, and the court ordered the release of $75,000 to each party and a $7,500 reimbursement to the applicant, consistent with the original agreement.

The applicant sought orders for the disbursement of net proceeds from the sale of the former family residence, including payment of sale-related expenses, responsibility for a mortgage penalty by the respondent, and equal division of remaining proceeds with costs from the respondent's share.

The respondent proposed an interim disbursement of $150,000 each, with the remainder held in trust.

The court ordered $100,000 to be held back from the net proceeds, with the balance divided equally, and awarded costs of the motion to be paid from the respondent's share.

The court noted that significant issues, including child support, spousal support, occupation rent, and Airbnb income accounting, remain unresolved and are scheduled for trial.

This endorsement from a case conference addressed outstanding issues of child support and disclosure.

The court provided directions for the respondent to address corporate financial disclosure, including potentially engaging an accountant, and for personal disclosure to be exchanged.

The parties were encouraged to reach consent on disclosure timelines and support proposals, with the court prepared to issue a procedural order if no agreement was reached.

The applicant brought an urgent ex parte 14B motion seeking access, police enforcement, and make-up visits for his daughter during the COVID-19 emergency period.

The court found insufficient information to assess the urgency, noting the applicant's affidavit lacked details on the child's age, status of proceedings, or existing orders, and that the respondent had not been served.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, with directions for proper service and refiling.

The respondent brought a motion seeking increased parenting time with his child and an order to transfer the child to a different daycare location.

The applicant opposed these requests.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to change the child's daycare, finding that the proposed change would impose an undue travel burden on the child and was not in the child's best interests at that time.

The court granted the respondent an updated parenting schedule, including one full weekday and every Sunday, and ordered that weekend overnight parenting time would commence in June 2019, followed by mid-week overnight parenting time in September 2019, subject to any earlier trial decision.

The court emphasized that the child's best interests are the sole test in parenting time disputes and noted the ongoing parental conflict.

The applicant and respondent sought a validity order to declare their marriage valid after discovering the ceremony was performed by an individual mistakenly believed to be authorized under the Marriage Act.

The court, applying section 31 of the Marriage Act, found that all statutory criteria for deeming a marriage valid were met, including good faith solemnization, intent to comply with legislation, absence of legal disqualification, and cohabitation as a married couple.

Consequently, the court granted the order, declaring their marriage valid.

The applicant sought custody of his daughter following the respondent's unilateral, unannounced relocation with the child to a new city, which violated a prior court order.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) also brought a motion for disclosure of the child's records due to the respondent's non-compliance.

The court found the respondent's actions to be an exceptional case warranting a change in the child's primary residence, citing the child's instability, special needs, and the respondent's secretive and unilateral decisions.

The court granted the applicant interim primary residence and amended access arrangements, while dismissing the OCL's motion as it was resolved by consent if disclosures were made.