Ronald P. Kaufman

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.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking various interim orders, including the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, medical disclosure regarding the applicant father's leave of absence, a change in the child's school, and interim child support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no evidence that the child would be negatively impacted and noting the father's financial difficulties in maintaining the property.

The court also ordered the father to provide medical disclosure and pay interim child support.

The mother's request to change the child's school was dismissed due to a lack of material change in circumstances, though the interim parenting schedule was slightly modified to reduce the child's travel time.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking various interim orders, including the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, disclosure of the applicant father's medical records regarding his work leave, child support, and a change in the child's school from Markham to Toronto.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no evidence that the child would be negatively impacted and noting the father's financial difficulties.

The court also ordered the father to provide medical documentation regarding his leave of absence.

The request to change the child's school was dismissed as there was no material change in circumstances, but the interim parenting schedule was slightly modified to reduce the child's travel time.

Interim child support and payment of household expenses were also ordered.

The moving party, the stepfather of the children involved in a custody dispute, sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to provide his consent for the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to obtain his Children's Aid Society and police records.

The OCL had been appointed to represent the children under section 89(3.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The stepfather argued that as a non-party not seeking custody, he should not be compelled to disclose these records.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the records were relevant to determining the best interests of the children and ensuring a safe home environment.

The applicant sought a final order enforcing a settlement reached during a mid-trial conference.

The respondent, whose pleadings had previously been struck for flagrant and repeated breaches of court orders, attempted to resile from the settlement, arguing she lacked legal advice and that material terms were missing.

The court reviewed the extensive litigation history, noted the respondent's 'scorched earth' litigation conduct, and found that she had clearly understood and agreed to the settlement terms in court.

The court granted the final order incorporating the settlement, emphasizing the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to deal with cases justly and efficiently.

The applicant sought a final determination of issues allegedly resolved during a mid-trial conference.

The respondent, whose pleadings had previously been struck due to repeated breaches of court orders, attempted to resile from the settlement, claiming she did not intend to settle and lacked legal advice.

The court reviewed the extensive litigation history, noted the respondent's 'scorched earth' tactics, and found that a binding settlement had been reached on the record.

The court granted a final order enforcing the settlement, requiring the applicant to pay $30,000 for the respondent's interest in the family residence, conditional upon her waiving all appeal rights.

Following settlement of the family proceeding at a trial management conference on minutes of settlement, the court determined the reserved issue of costs.

Applying the costs framework under the Family Law Rules, the court held that the party seeking costs was entitled to them despite settlement language limiting each party to their own costs for negotiation and preparation of the agreement.

The court found both sides had acted unreasonably by failing to make offers to settle earlier, but also found the responding party could have accepted the minutes before the deadline expired.

Costs were fixed in a reduced amount proportionate to the issues argued.

The parties brought competing family law motions arising from the breakdown of a short marriage and disputing the validity of a marriage contract executed shortly before the wedding.

Issues included interim spousal support, disclosure, interim disbursements, exclusive possession of properties in Ontario and Florida, and whether the validity of the marriage contract should be determined separately from the remaining claims.

The court held that solicitor-client privilege had been waived concerning negotiations of the marriage contract and ordered production of former counsel’s files.

Interim spousal support of $6,000 per month was ordered retroactive to November 1, 2013 in accordance with the marriage contract, pending trial.

The court further ordered limited financial disclosure and directed that the issues of the contract’s validity and the valuation date be bifurcated and tried first.

In a highly contentious family proceeding, the respondent spouse brought a Form 14B motion seeking dismissal of the applicant spouse’s claims, alternatively compliance with prior court orders or security for costs.

The applicant spouse responded with a competing 14B motion seeking dismissal of the respondent’s motion and a stay of her participation.

The court reviewed the extensive procedural history and determined that neither motion properly fell within the limited procedural scope permitted for Form 14B motions under the Family Law Rules.

Applying appellate authority emphasizing that striking pleadings in family cases is an exceptional remedy, the court declined to dismiss either party’s case.

Both motions were addressed on their merits but no dismissal or security order was granted, and the court imposed case-management restrictions requiring permission before any further motions could be brought.

Cross-motions in a family law matter concerning parenting time and therapeutic reunification.

The mother sought to suspend an existing access order pending a future motion date, while the father sought an order appointing a specific professional to conduct reintegration or reunification therapy between him and the children.

The court declined to suspend the existing access order and emphasized the urgency of commencing reintegration therapy.

Given the parties’ lack of mutual trust in the proposed experts, the court directed the two proposed professionals to consult and jointly recommend a neutral third professional to undertake the therapy.

The matter was scheduled to return before the court for an update on the selected professional.

The responding party brought a motion to change concerning the currency conversion applied to a foreign spousal support order registered in Ontario under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

The issue was whether support payable in U.S. dollars should be converted using the exchange rate from the date of the original foreign judgment or another date.

The court held that applying the 1999 exchange rate resulted in the payor paying substantially more than the amount required under the foreign judgment when converted to U.S. currency.

The court ordered that the Bank of Canada exchange rate as of the date the foreign judgment was registered in Ontario be used, with annual reconciliation to ensure the recipient receives the equivalent of US$35,000 per year.

The applicant’s procedural motion seeking arrears and increased deductions was dismissed.