Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a high-conflict family law trial between Egle Maria Paglialonga and Jairo Umana Arias.

The court found the mother’s conduct in refusing parenting time to the father to be unreasonable and awarded the father $43,505 in costs, reflecting a near full recovery for trial costs and a partial recovery for pretrial conduct.

The decision discusses the principles of reasonableness and proportionality in costs awards, the importance of proper Bill of Costs documentation, and the risks of including privileged information.

The plaintiff, Texford St. Bernard, sought compensation from the defendant, June Andrews, for alleged unpaid contributions to the construction and improvement of a property at 179 Bullis Road, Brighton, Ontario.

The court found that the claim was largely statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s assertion that he was owed money for the work or expenses claimed.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

This costs endorsement addresses the aftermath of a motion by Irene Theodora Maria Slegers to disqualify Lerners LLP from acting for Hans Charles Jonckheere due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflict, and was then asked to determine costs.

The court reviews the parties’ positions, the timing of the costs determination, the presumption of costs for the successful party, the impact of settlement offers, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs claimed.

Ultimately, the court orders Irene to pay Hans $57,000 in costs, reflecting the complexity and significance of the motion, the parties’ conduct, and comparable case law.

This decision concerns the costs award following a 54-day family law trial.

The applicant, J.M.M., sought costs after being successful on all major issues, including parenting, child support, spousal support, and property.

The court awarded $150,000 in costs (inclusive of disbursements and HST), finding this amount fair and proportionate given the applicant’s success, the respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct, and the respondent’s significant mental health and financial challenges.

The court structured payment terms to reflect the respondent’s limited means and designated a portion of the award as support, enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

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.

This decision resolves a school placement dispute between separated parents for the 2025/2026 academic year.

The father sought to have the children attend schools in his catchment area, while the mother sought different placements and temporary sole decision-making over education.

The court considered the best interests of each child, their school history, and the stability of their placements.

The court ordered that E. remain at Albert Campbell C.I., I. apply to attend Albert Campbell C.I. (with a fallback to West Hill C.I. if not accepted), and M. attend Grey Owl Junior Public School.

The mother was ordered to pay the father $6,000 in costs.

The court granted the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings in a protracted family law dispute, finding a persistent pattern of non-disclosure, delay, and non-compliance with court orders by the respondent.

The court also granted declaratory and enforcement relief regarding property transfers and allowed the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial, with limited rights for the respondent to submit evidence.

The decision reviews the legal principles for striking pleadings in family law, emphasizing the exceptional nature of the remedy and the importance of disclosure and compliance.

This decision concerns a motion to change the placement of a child, A., from her paternal grandmother’s care to her mother’s care under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court reviews the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the reliability of statements made by the child, and the comparative risks and benefits of each placement.

The court applies the augmented best interests test for Indigenous children, considering the hierarchy of placements under the federal legislation.

The court concludes that placement with the mother is required to promote A.’s best interests and issues a temporary order accordingly.

The court declared that the transfer of a wheelchair-accessible van from the respondent father to a friend was a fraudulent conveyance void against the applicant mother, a creditor.

The court ordered the proceeds of the subsequent sale of the van to be paid to the mother’s solicitors in trust to secure her equalization and support claims, and awarded costs against both respondents.

The decision reviews the legal framework for fraudulent conveyances and the tracing of proceeds under Ontario law.

The court considered whether it has jurisdiction to make a final order for corollary relief under the Divorce Act before a divorce is granted.

After reviewing conflicting authorities, the court concluded that, according to binding appellate authority, a Canadian court cannot make a final order for corollary relief under the Divorce Act unless a divorce has been granted.

The court also addressed the correction of a previous order that was mistakenly made under the Divorce Act before a divorce claim was included, and provided guidance for future cases to avoid orders made without jurisdiction.

Ce jugement porte sur une demande non contestée de divorce et de mesures accessoires, incluant la garde, la pension alimentaire pour enfants, la répartition des biens et des ordonnances de non-communication, dans un contexte d’allégations de violence familiale.

La Cour accorde le divorce, la garde exclusive à la mère, la résidence principale des enfants chez la mère, une pension alimentaire basée sur un revenu imputé au père, et des ordonnances accessoires pour la stabilité et la sécurité des enfants.

La Cour refuse la renonciation à la pension alimentaire pour conjoint et à l’égalisation des biens, faute de preuve suffisante.

Une ordonnance de non-communication limitée est rendue.

Les dépens sont accordés à la requérante.

The court addresses a family law dispute between Chadia Abou-Assaly and Mounir El-Saikali, involving issues of decision-making responsibility, child support, equalization of net family property, and resulting trust claims over two properties.

The court finds that the applicant is entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in both the Foxden and Forestglade properties by way of resulting trust, sets the date of separation as August 13, 2019, and orders child support and arrears based on imputed income.

The court also addresses the respondent's self-represented status, disclosure failures, and the need for further proceedings to finalize equalization and support calculations.

The Applicant mother brought a motion for interim child support and disclosure, which the Respondent father sought to adjourn to be heard alongside an upcoming parenting time motion.

The parties agreed to proceed solely on the issue of temporary child support pending the final hearing.

The court rejected the Respondent's arguments that he had a shared parenting arrangement and that his recent higher income years were non-recurring outliers.

Consequently, the court ordered the Respondent to pay interim child support of $1,613.90 per month commencing May 1, 2025, and adjourned the remainder of the motion to June 30, 2025.

The court granted the respondent husband's motion to strike out the applicant wife's pleadings due to her repeated breaches of court orders, including failure to attend questioning and failure to provide proof of listing the jointly owned property in China for sale.

The court found the breaches willful and proportionate to the remedy of striking pleadings, and awarded costs to the husband.

The wife was given a final opportunity to restore her application by complying with outstanding orders and paying costs.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated in 2017 after a four-year marriage, leaving several financial issues to be resolved at trial.

The court determined that a purported mortgage and renovation loan from the husband's parents were actually gifts, meaning they could not be deducted from his net family property, resulting in an equalization payment of $326,211.50.

Additionally, the court imputed an annual income of $63,863 to the husband due to non-disclosure and creative accounting, ordering him to pay retroactive child support arrears of $27,198 and s. 7 expense arrears of $4,921.53.

The wife's claim for spousal support was dismissed.

The respondent father sought to change the primary residence of the parties’ 14-year-old son, M., from Toronto with the mother to Hamilton with the father, so M. could attend Bishop Tonnos Secondary School and play football.

The mother opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and that it was not in M.’s best interests.

The court found a material change in circumstances but declined to change M.’s primary residence, citing concerns about the father’s pattern of family violence and inability to support M.’s relationship with the mother.

The court did, however, adjust the parenting schedule to allow M. more time with the father, especially during the summer and on weekends, to support his football interests.

The decision addresses a temporary motion by the mother to relocate the parties’ two children from Toronto to Winnipeg.

The court found that the mother established a material change in circumstances, including a new job in Winnipeg, better housing, and family support.

The court considered the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act and relevant case law, ultimately granting the mother’s request to relocate with the children on a temporary basis, with detailed provisions for the father’s parenting time and travel arrangements.

Le jugement porte sur la qualification des contributions financières faites par Sylvain Laplante à Karen Bellemare lors de leur relation de fait, notamment en lien avec l'achat et l'entretien d'une résidence.

Le tribunal conclut que les contributions de Laplante ne constituaient pas un loyer, mais donnaient plutôt ouverture à une fiducie résultoire et à une réparation pour enrichissement sans cause, en raison de l'absence d'intention de donation et de la contribution substantielle de Laplante à la mise de fonds et aux dépenses de la propriété.

La décision détaille les critères applicables à la fiducie résultoire, à l'enrichissement sans cause et à la coentreprise familiale, et fixe la compensation monétaire due.

This was a costs ruling following a successful application by the father under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The court had previously ordered the return of the parties' child to Illinois, finding she had been wrongfully retained in Ontario by the mother.

The father sought full recovery costs of $36,356.06, while the mother argued that no costs should be payable due to her financial circumstances and her focus on the child's best interests.

The court found the mother's litigation conduct and her late-stage challenge to the child's habitual residence to be unreasonable, ultimately ordering her to pay the father $33,000.00 in costs.

This costs decision follows a 15-day family law trial concerning parenting, support, and equalization.

The court found that the father, Salvatore Ginese, had engaged in severe parental alienation and coercive control, amounting to bad faith conduct.

Although the mother, Rita Fadel, did not obtain the custody reversal she sought, the court awarded her full recovery costs for the trial due to the father's egregious behaviour, but not for the entire proceeding due to mixed success on financial issues.

The father was ordered to pay $165,000 in costs, including the cost of an expert whose involvement was rendered futile by the father's conduct.