Shore

At the commencement of a family law trial, the applicant brought a motion to adjourn the trial and strike the respondent's pleadings due to the respondent's failure to provide court-ordered disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion to adjourn and strike, noting the extensive procedural history, previous orders mandating the trial proceed, and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to resolve matters efficiently.

The court granted the applicant's request for a non-dissipation order regarding the respondent's shares in certain companies.

The parties entered into a separation agreement in 2018, which provided for spousal support of $1,000 per month for 10 years.

The applicant subsequently moved to Ukraine and was employed there until she lost her job in January 2022.

Following the outbreak of war in Ukraine in February 2022, the applicant lived in a bomb shelter, developed PTSD, and was unable to find employment before returning to Canada.

Both parties brought motions to change spousal support.

The court found that the war in Ukraine and the applicant's resulting inability to find work constituted a material change in circumstance.

The court varied the spousal support order, increasing the quantum to $2,700 per month based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The applicant father sought a week-on/week-off parenting schedule and permission to travel to Mexico for a week with the parties' 20-month-old child.

The father's freelance work schedule allowed him to care for the child on alternate weeks.

The mother opposed the schedule, arguing the child was too young to be separated from her for a full week.

The court applied the AFCC Parenting Guidelines, finding that a toddler should not be separated from either parent for more than two to three days.

The court dismissed the father's requests, establishing a schedule that prevented extended separations while maximizing the father's parenting time during his available week.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a separation agreement permitting her to travel to Ethiopia with the parties' two children during their summer vacation.

The respondent father refused to permit the travel, citing concerns that the mother would not return the children to Ontario and noting that Ethiopia is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.

The court found no reason to deviate from the separation agreement, noting the father's concerns existed when the agreement was signed and relying on the children's expressed excitement about the trip.

The court ordered the enforcement of the agreement, dispensed with the father's consent for passport renewal, and awarded costs of $5,000 to the mother.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking sole decision-making responsibility to have the parties' 7-year-old child vaccinated against COVID-19 and to ensure the child wears a mask to attend school in-person.

The respondent father vehemently opposed the vaccine and mask mandates, threatening to withdraw the child from school and making threatening statements to the mother and school staff.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to be vaccinated and to attend school in-person wearing a mask.

The court granted the mother temporary sole decision-making responsibility for medical and educational issues, primary residence, and the ability to renew the child's passport.

Due to the father's threatening behaviour and refusal to follow public health guidelines, his parenting time was ordered to be supervised and a restraining order was issued.

The mother brought a motion seeking an order that the father pay his proportionate share of the child's section 7 expenses, including daycare, private school tuition, and extracurricular activities, as well as a retroactive adjustment to child support.

The court granted the request for daycare expenses, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the court dismissed the claims for private school tuition, finding it unaffordable and unnecessary, and for extracurricular activities, finding them not extraordinary.

The request for a retroactive adjustment to child support was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence to set aside the parties' prior agreement.

The applicant's former lawyer brought a motion in family court for a charging order against a property for unpaid legal fees of approximately $664,323.

The property had been transferred to the respondent husband pursuant to family law minutes of settlement.

The court held that while the motion should ideally have been brought in the related civil action commenced by the lawyer, the family court had jurisdiction and would decide the motion to save resources.

The court granted the charging order, finding the lawyer was instrumental in preserving equity in the property and that there was a triable issue regarding whether the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance, with quantification to be determined in the civil action.

The parties separated in 2015 and continued to reside in the jointly owned matrimonial home.

At trial, the court determined the parties' net family property, including the division of contents, vehicle valuation, and date of marriage deductions.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment and half of the post-separation capital expenses for the home, but not utilities.

The applicant was granted exclusive possession of the home pending its sale and retained a right of first refusal to purchase it.

The applicant sought spousal support and a $400,000 payment for unjust enrichment, claiming the parties were common law spouses during their 21-year cohabitation.

The respondent argued they were merely roommates.

Applying the Molodowich criteria, the court found the parties were in a conjugal relationship despite a lack of sexual intimacy, noting the applicant's severe mental health issues and the respondent's financial support and naming of the applicant as a spouse on various documents.

The court ordered non-compensatory spousal support but dismissed the applicant's claims for unjust enrichment and joint family venture, finding he was financially advantaged by the relationship.

A restraining order was also granted limiting the applicant's communication with the respondent.

Following an eight-day trial where the applicant was successful in establishing entitlement to spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought costs of $366,764.44, while the respondent argued no costs should be payable.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the central issue and noted the respondent's unreasonable behaviour regarding disclosure and evasive testimony.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $324,179.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application seeking the return of his 8-year-old daughter to Italy after the respondent mother wrongfully removed her to Canada in 2017.

The mother argued that Italy was not the child's habitual residence, that returning her would pose a grave risk of harm, and that the child was now settled in Ontario.

The court rejected all of the mother's arguments, finding that the child's habitual residence was Italy, the allegations of abuse did not meet the high threshold for grave risk, and the child's status in Canada was precarious.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to Italy.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's motion to change a final child support order.

The respondent, who had accumulated over $34,000 in arrears and failed to comply with an order to obtain an Islamic divorce, sought to terminate his child support obligations, claiming his income was lower than imputed.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no material change in circumstance as the respondent's actual income was close to the imputed amount.

Alternatively, the court struck the motion to change under Rule 1(8) due to the respondent's flagrant disregard for prior court orders and failure to pay support.

The applicant sought spousal support after the end of a 14-year relationship with the wealthy respondent.

The respondent argued they were not spouses because they maintained separate residences in Toronto.

The court found that the parties lived together in a conjugal relationship, noting they spent summers together at a cottage, wintered in Florida, and the respondent treated the applicant as his wife and financially supported her.

The court awarded the applicant indefinite spousal support of $53,077 per month and retroactive support of $421,795.12, finding a strong pattern of economic dependency.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, both parties brought motions regarding parenting and access to their two teenage children.

The applicant father sought to enforce access and mandate therapy, while the respondent mother sought to suspend access and obtain a Voice of the Child Report.

The court dismissed the mother's motions, finding that a Voice of the Child Report would only subject the children to further manipulation given the extreme parental conflict.

The court ordered the children to continue therapy under strict non-interference conditions and directed the matter to proceed to an expedited trial.

The applicant was successful on a motion regarding the residential schedule of the parties' daughter and sought costs of $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

While the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs due to his success and beating his offer to settle, the court found that both parties had engaged in blameworthy conduct that escalated the conflict contrary to the child's best interests.

Consequently, the court reduced the applicant's cost recovery and awarded him $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting schedule for the parties' child, following the release of a Section 30 assessment report.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the current schedule or implement Phase 1 of the assessor's recommendations.

The court found compelling reasons to change the temporary order, noting the high conflict between the parties and the stress caused by transitions.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered a 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule and set out detailed terms for transitions, communication, and holidays.