R.P. Kaufman

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' 16-year-old son from an educational and therapeutic program in Utah, United States.

The urgency was predicated on the COVID-19 pandemic and the imminent closure of the Canada-US border.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to return to Canada immediately, given the health concerns and government recommendations for citizens abroad.

The court ordered the respondent mother to turn over the child's passport and required both parties to cooperate in facilitating the child's return, after which he would self-quarantine with the applicant for 14 days.

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 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 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.