Ruth Karen Kalnitsky Roth

This decision follows an uncontested trial regarding the residency, decision-making, and parenting time for two children wrongfully removed from Ontario to Lebanon by the respondent, Luna Mounir Andraos.

The court confirms final orders for the children to reside with the applicant, Amin Joseph Barakat, who is granted sole decision-making responsibility, and for the respondent to have only supervised parenting time.

The court also addresses the respondent’s ongoing defiance of previous orders and awards costs for the uncontested trial.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant for retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, interim disbursements, striking the respondent’s pleadings or imposing financial penalties for non-compliance, and costs.

The court grants the motion in part, ordering child and spousal support based on the respondent’s self-reported income, imposing financial penalties for breaches of court orders, and requiring the respondent to provide further disclosure and retain a Chartered Business Valuator.

The court declines to add the respondent’s corporation as a party or pierce the corporate veil at this stage.

Costs are awarded to the applicant.

The Applicant Wife brought a motion seeking spousal and child support, interim disbursements, and costs.

The parties agreed on entitlement to compensatory spousal and child support, disputing only the quantum.

The court determined the Respondent's income for support purposes, including bonuses and benefits, and found the Applicant entitled to share in post-separation income increases.

The court ordered uncharacterized interim support of $60,000 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2022, and dismissed the motion for interim disbursements, finding the Applicant would have sufficient funds from the retroactive support.

This endorsement addresses a request for costs following the consensual withdrawal of a Motion to Change filed by the applicant and a Response to Motion to Change filed by the respondent.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging unreasonable and bad faith behaviour by the applicant.

The court denied the respondent's request, ordering each party to bear their own costs.

The court found that both parties were quick to litigate rather than adhere to their separation agreement's dispute resolution mechanism.

Furthermore, the respondent's costs claim was inflated by time spent on incorrectly pleaded claims for custody, access, and life insurance, which were beyond the court's jurisdiction or improperly sought.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the immediate sale of two jointly owned properties, including the matrimonial home where the applicant mother resided with their children, and an investment condominium.

The father cited severe financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which drastically reduced his income as an optometrist.

The mother opposed the sale, arguing no urgency, potential homelessness for the children, and questioning the father's financial claims.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that economic necessity required the sale of both properties to alleviate debt and free up equity, and that the mother failed to establish sufficient legal reason or prejudice to prevent the sale.

The court emphasized the need for parties to face financial realities, especially during the pandemic, and to move towards an efficient resolution.