Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

This decision concerns an uncontested family law trial in which the applicant mother, Narjes Ebrahimi, sought a divorce, a parenting order, and retroactive and ongoing child support based on an imputed income for the respondent father, Mohammad Ali Muradi, who has been absent since 2016.

The court granted a final parenting order in the best interests of the child, C.M., and a divorce, but denied the request for child support due to lack of evidence regarding the father's income or whereabouts.

The court considered a motion by the mother to relocate with the parties’ two children to New Brunswick for her continuing education, and for sole decision-making responsibility.

The father opposed the relocation and sought joint decision-making and continued parenting time.

The court reviewed the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act, the history of parenting, the impact of relocation, and the reasonableness of the mother’s proposal.

The court denied the mother’s application to relocate, finding the plan would sever the children’s relationship with their father and was not fully developed.

The court ordered the parties to continue with the interim parenting schedule until August 1, 2025, after which the father must exercise parenting time outside the mother’s home, and directed the parties to meet with a mediator to develop a new schedule.

The decision addresses a motion for the immediate sale of a jointly owned cottage property in the context of ongoing family law proceedings.

The applicant mother sought the sale, while the respondent father opposed until equalization of net family property was resolved.

The court also considered reimbursement for post-separation and education expenses, and the need for business valuations.

The court ordered the mother to complete business valuations, granted interim reimbursement to the father for certain expenses, and ordered the immediate sale of the cottage, setting out a process for appraisal and sale.

This decision addresses interim parenting, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and child support in a high-conflict family law matter.

The court finds that the best interests of the children require primary residence with the mother, Katherine Demetriou, and grants her exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The father, Siayr Jamali, is granted alternate weekend parenting time and ordered to pay child support and a share of special expenses.

The court emphasizes the importance of proper filing and service of materials, the need for stability for the children, and the risks of ongoing parental conflict.

Costs are awarded to the successful party, the mother.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a motion regarding the choice of school for the parties’ teenage children.

The respondent father, having succeeded on the motion, sought full recovery costs.

The court found the applicant mother’s conduct unreasonable but not in bad faith, and awarded the father elevated but not full recovery costs, fixing the amount at $4,000 inclusive of HST.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to amend a temporary parenting order, seeking supervised parenting time for the father due to his alleged incitement of the children to make abuse allegations against her and her new husband.

The court found the matter urgent, determined that the father's conduct constituted emotional harm to the children, and ordered supervised in-person and virtual parenting time for the father, with the mother retaining decision-making responsibility.

The court also ordered disclosure of police and CAS records and set out a process for further proceedings and costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking ongoing and retroactive child support, and contributions to section 7 expenses, based on an imputed income for the respondent father.

The respondent, a taxi driver, disputed the income and provided incomplete financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent had not adequately complied with disclosure obligations, imputed an annual income of $60,000 for 2024 and $21,500 for the preceding three years, and ordered ongoing and retroactive child support accordingly.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute to past and ongoing section 7 orthodontic expenses and awarded the applicant full indemnity costs due to the respondent's failure to provide timely and full disclosure.

This case involved an application for parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support between unmarried parents.

The applicant sought sole or joint custody with final decision-making authority and equal shared parenting time, while the respondent sought sole custody with final decision-making authority and a modified parenting schedule.

The court found the applicant's past conduct, including verbal abuse and excessive alcohol consumption, constituted family violence impacting the child's safety and well-being.

The court granted joint decision-making responsibility with the respondent having final authority on major issues, and set the child's primary residence with the respondent.

Parenting time for the applicant was adjusted to ensure the child's school attendance and meaningful time, with specific schedules for the school year and summer.

Child support arrears were calculated, and an ongoing support order was made, with adjustments for transportation costs.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his persistent failure to comply with four court orders for financial disclosure.

The court reviewed the procedural history, the respondent's inconsistent financial statements, and the materiality of the undisclosed information.

While acknowledging the respondent's efforts were piecemeal and his non-compliance was not entirely wilful, the court found the undisclosed information crucial for advancing the applicant's claims.

Instead of immediately striking pleadings, the court imposed strict disclosure requirements, ordered the respondent to obtain expert valuations for his corporate interests and Iranian land, produce specific corporate and international bank documentation, and pay outstanding costs.

The respondent was also precluded from taking further steps without leave and his claims were stayed until compliance.

The applicant sought spousal support, claiming the parties lived in a conjugal relationship for six years.

The respondent denied they were spouses, asserting the applicant was an unwelcome guest who refused to leave and became violent.

The court applied the Molodowich criteria and found the parties did not live in a conjugal relationship, dismissing the spousal support claim.

Additionally, the court dismissed a preliminary motion to initialize the parties' names and granted the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, barring her from instituting further proceedings against him without leave.

Following a motion regarding spousal support and striking pleadings where success was divided, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $10,000, while the respondent sought no costs or $10,000 payable to him.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and noted the respondent's unreasonable litigation behaviour, including failing to provide disclosure or comply with court orders.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs.

The applicant mother sought primary residence of the two children pending trial, while the respondent father sought an equal parenting schedule.

The court found the father had engaged in controlling and manipulative behaviour, including pressuring the children regarding equal time and unilaterally depleting home equity.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests to have primary residence with the mother to provide stability, with the father having alternate weekend parenting time.

The court also ordered joint decision-making with the mother having final say in the event of an impasse, and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court determined the costs of two motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent father was successful on a motion for the advancement of funds and was awarded costs of $22,967.05.

The respondent was unsuccessful on a motion to adjourn the trial, and the applicant mother was awarded costs of $7,631.38 for that motion.

The court ordered a set-off, resulting in a net payment of $15,335.67 by the applicant to the respondent.

Following a 17-day family law trial regarding custody, access, and child support, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $948,000 based on multiple offers to settle.

The court found the applicant was overall more successful but denied full recovery because her offers were not as favourable as the final order on all issues, particularly regarding time-sharing.

Noting that both parties acted unreasonably at times and that the legal fees were completely disproportionate to the issues, the court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $125,000, with $50,000 enforceable as an incident of support.

The parties separated after a 13-year cohabitation and 11-year marriage.

The applicant sought to resolve issues of spousal support, child support, and the timing of an agreed $90,000 equalization payment.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the respondent was underemployed and the applicant had unexplained expenses exceeding his declared income.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for ongoing spousal support, finding her entitlement was satisfied by previous payments from the family business.

The applicant was ordered to pay ongoing child support and retroactive arrears, with the equalization payment delayed until company mortgages become due or within three years.

Following a family law trial involving divorce, custody, access, travel permissions, and support issues, the court determined the applicant was overwhelmingly the successful party.

The applicant obtained divorce, sole custody, a non-removal order, travel authorization, and a restraining order, while the respondent’s claims were entirely dismissed.

Although the applicant did not succeed on spousal support, retroactive child support, or a request relating to a religious divorce, the court found the balance of success strongly favoured her.

The court fixed costs in the applicant’s favour.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, interim child support, and the sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought interim exclusive possession of the home.

The court determined interim support based on a respondent income of $225,000 and applicant income of $25,000, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines with child support formula.

The court ordered interim child support and spousal support retroactive to the commencement of the application.

The respondent’s request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed, and the court ordered the home sold under the Partition Act, subject to a 30‑day opportunity for the respondent to buy out the applicant’s interest.

The applicant spouse brought an interlocutory motion in an uncontested family proceeding after the respondent failed to file an answer.

The court considered entitlement to interim spousal support, pension valuation, and the sale of jointly owned real properties pending trial.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the parties’ lengthy marriage, the respondent’s income, and the applicant’s medical inability to work, the court ordered interim spousal support.

The court also authorized the applicant to obtain the family law value of the respondent’s pension without his consent and ordered that jointly owned real properties be listed for sale under the Partition Act.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order of Crown wardship for a child, with no access to the parents.

The mother opposed the motion, proposing a plan of care where she would live with her mother and step-father.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, relying on a previous psychological assessment indicating the mother's cognitive challenges and inability to parent independently, as well as uncontradicted evidence of child protection concerns regarding the maternal grandparents.

The court ordered Crown wardship and, finding the mother failed to establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship, made the order silent as to access.

The children's aid society sought an order granting custody of a four-year-old child to the maternal grandmother, with access to the parents.

The father initially sought sole custody but conceded during the trial that the grandmother should have custody.

The court found that the father lacked insight into his parenting role and exhibited behaviors that undermined the grandmother and the mother.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Child and Family Services Act, the court granted custody to the grandmother and ordered that the father's access be at the grandmother's discretion.

The father was also ordered not to return to court on custody and access issues without proof of meaningful psychotherapy.