Sheri Hirschberg

This family law trial addressed complex financial issues between former spouses after a protracted separation, including equalization of net family property, post-valuation date adjustments, and occupation rent for the matrimonial home.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, determined the value of various assets and liabilities, and ruled on the deductibility of the husband's alleged pre-marriage assets and the excludability of the wife's gifted shares.

The decision also considered the wife's conduct regarding the delayed sale of the matrimonial home and the husband's claim for occupation rent, ultimately ordering a net payment from the husband to the wife, alongside a significant occupation rent payment from the wife to the husband.

This case involved multiple motions concerning parenting arrangements and decision-making for four children following the death of their mother/sister.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother, sought sole decision-making for one child and increased parenting time/reunification therapy for two others.

The respondents, including the great-grandmother and an extended family member, sought various parenting and decision-making orders.

The court ordered shared decision-making and a week-on-week-off parenting schedule for the youngest child between the grandmother and great-grandmother.

Sole decision-making and primary residence were granted to the extended family member for the two older children, respecting their views.

The court dismissed the request for reunification therapy, finding it not beneficial given the children's wishes and family dysfunction.

The Children's Aid Society's handling of the case was also criticized for failing to adequately address the children's emotional needs and views.

The parties separated after a long marriage characterized by the Applicant's controlling and abusive behaviour towards the Respondent.

Following separation, the Applicant engaged in a relentless campaign of parental alienation, successfully alienating the older child and attempting to alienate the younger child, E.S. The Applicant falsely alleged the Respondent had severe mental health issues to justify withholding the children.

The court found the Respondent's mental health was stable and that the Applicant's alienating conduct constituted family violence.

To protect E.S. from further alienation, the court ordered that E.S. reside primarily with the Respondent, who was granted exclusive decision-making authority, with the Applicant receiving specified parenting time.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of Mario Andriano's motion to change child support and rescind arrears.

Pasqualina Scarola and the Ministry of Community and Social Services/York Region Social Services sought costs.

The court found Mario Andriano to be the unsuccessful party and rejected his allegations of unreasonable litigation conduct against Scarola.

Scarola's offer to settle, which was bettered at trial, entitled her to full recovery costs.

The Ministry and Region were also awarded costs.

The applicant and respondent, common-law partners with two children, sought judicial determination on two outstanding issues following a consent order on custody and most access.

The respondent sought two additional days of access and a corresponding reduction in child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court granted one minor access extension (on consent) but denied the second, more significant access request, finding it not to be in the children's best interests due to the respondent's post-night shift demeanor and the chaotic impact on the children's routine.

Consequently, the respondent did not meet the 40% threshold for shared custody, and no change was made to the child support quantum.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a 2015 final order that imputed his income at $70,000 and ordered child support.

He argued that his relapse into daily drug use and subsequent driver's license suspension constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father's evidence regarding his income and drug use unreliable, and concluding that his license suspension was a self-induced consequence of failing to pay child support.

The court also added the father's unpaid share of orthodontic expenses to his child support arrears, fixing total arrears at $48,024.

The appellant wife appealed an order directing the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home prior to trial.

The respondent husband had brought a motion for the sale to access his equity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the law that a joint tenant has a prima facie right to partition and sale.

The wife failed to provide sufficient evidence that her potential equalization claims would be prejudiced by the sale, given the significant equity in the home.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final custody order, seeking sole custody of the two children.

His grounds included the respondent mother's alleged inability to ensure timely school attendance, marijuana use, and frequent changes in residence and schools.

The mother opposed the custody change and sought increased retroactive and prospective child support.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no material change in circumstances warranting a custody change.

However, the court granted the mother's request for increased child support, fixing retroactive arrears and setting a new prospective amount.

The court also ordered the children to attend a "Families in Transition" program and mandated parental adherence to school recommendations for the children's educational and therapeutic needs, particularly for Maelyn's ADHD diagnosis and Individual Education Plan.

The father brought a motion seeking recusal of the trial judge and a declaration of mistrial on two grounds: (1) late disclosure and non-disclosure of notes from Jennifer Shneer, the mother's therapist employed by the child protection society, which the father claimed prejudiced his ability to conduct his case; and (2) an alleged apprehension of bias arising from a distant familial relationship between the judge and the proposed witness.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding no prejudicial disclosure, no basis for declaring a mistrial, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The father brought a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the court's scheduling of a child protection trial, arguing that adjournments exceeding 30 days and the failure to schedule consecutive trial dates violated his Charter rights under sections 7 and 15.

The father sought various remedies including dismissal of the application, placement of children in his care, or modified access arrangements.

The court dismissed the constitutional motion in its entirety, finding that the scheduling decisions were within the court's jurisdiction and discretion, that no Charter rights were violated, and that the sought remedies were neither appropriate nor just in the circumstances.

A motion brought by counsel for the mother seeking to be removed as solicitor of record in a child protection proceeding scheduled for trial.

The mother's counsel sought removal due to financial hardship, as the mother had no capacity to pay further legal fees and did not qualify for legal aid.

The court dismissed the motion, balancing the hardship to counsel against the potential prejudice to the mother and the administration of justice.

The court found that the mother would be at a considerable disadvantage if forced to represent herself, particularly given the complexity of the case, the mother's limited English proficiency, and the fact that she would be facing experienced counsel for both the society and the father.

A child protection society sought an order placing two children in the temporary care and custody of their mother subject to society supervision, with the father to have access at the society's discretion.

The father opposed the motion and sought the children be returned to both parents on a week-on, week-off basis.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children faced risk of sexual and emotional harm based on evidence of sexually inappropriate behaviour by both parents, the father's history of sexual violence convictions in Utah, allegations of domestic violence, and the father's lack of insight into protection concerns.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the children with the mother under supervision and ordering the father's access remain discretionary pending full disclosure of his criminal and therapeutic records.