Rupa Murthi

This decision addresses interim parenting arrangements and a temporary relocation request in the context of serious allegations of family violence.

The court finds that the mother, Swati Kaushik, should retain sole decision-making responsibility and that the children should remain primarily in her care in New Jersey until trial or August 31, 2025.

The court applies the Supreme Court’s guidance in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, emphasizing the impact of family violence on the best interests of the children and the appropriateness of temporary relocation in such circumstances.

The restraining order is rescinded, and costs are awarded to the mother.

This is a motion to change a prior custody and support order.

The applicant father sought joint custody of the child but was unsuccessful.

The court granted the father week-to-week access including alternate weekends and mid-week access, with cooperation on holidays.

The court also varied the prior child and spousal support orders, establishing a complex retroactive support calculation based on the father's imputed income over multiple periods from June 2016 onwards, with various credits for payments made.

The father's obligation to pay section 7 expenses was adjusted, and the parties were directed to share future agreed-upon section 7 expenses proportionally based on income.

The Applicant sought an urgent order for the sale of a jointly owned property and an amendment to her application, citing dire financial circumstances due to mortgage arrears and lack of income.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent, the application was procedurally improper given a prior divorce, and that it constituted a malicious collateral attack.

The court found the matter urgent, applying the Thomas v. Wohleber test, noting the immediate risk of losing equity.

It permitted the amendment and ordered the sale of the property, rejecting the Respondent's procedural objections and finding no malicious conduct.

The Applicant was granted sole authority for the sale above a specified price, with the Respondent given a limited opportunity to purchase the property first.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order declaring a Russian divorce invalid.

The parties were Russian citizens and permanent residents of Canada who separated in Canada in 2015.

The appellant obtained a divorce in Russia in 2016 without properly serving the respondent, who was living in Canada.

The motion judge declared the Russian divorce invalid based on lack of notice.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not first determining whether the parties had a real and substantial connection to Russia.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge properly focused on the denial of natural justice (lack of notice) and was not required to analyze the real and substantial connection issue first.

The respondent in a high-conflict family law proceeding brought a motion seeking the sale of the matrimonial home, carriage of the sale, exclusive possession, and financial disclosure.

The applicant sought an adjournment, which the court denied.

The court declined to order the immediate sale of the home or vary the existing exclusive possession order so close to trial, provided the applicant complies with a proposal to pay $20,000 monthly towards outstanding costs and $12,350 monthly for support and arrears.

The court also ordered the applicant to comply with outstanding financial disclosure requests.