Stanley Peter Jaskot

The respondent (mother) brought a motion seeking temporary and permanent leave to relocate with the children from the Region of Waterloo to the City of Oakville in the Region of Halton, and to change their school.

The applicant (father) brought a cross-motion to dismiss the relocation request and sought expanded access.

The court granted the respondent's motion for relocation, finding it to be in the children's best interests, considering the mother's role as primary caregiver, her support network in Oakville, and the minimal impact on the father's access.

The court also adjusted the parenting schedule, increasing the father's access time on alternate weekends.

Following several days of motion proceedings in a civil action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The judge found that both sides engaged in blameworthy conduct that wasted court time and caused unnecessary expense, including inadequate particularization of a motion and delayed production of a redacted response to a demand for particulars.

After the production of the redacted response, the majority of the hearing time was spent on the applicants’ motion to strike the entire action, which the court dismissed.

The court concluded that substantial indemnity costs were not appropriate but awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs for the motion.

Costs were fixed at $22,138.96, representing four-fifths of the amount requested, payable at the end of trial.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent’s pleadings and to vest his one-half interest in the matrimonial home in her, alleging breaches of prior court orders including a non-dissipation order and failure to pay spousal support and costs.

The respondent had sold assets listed in his financial statement to fund the purchase of a property in Florida and withdrew funds from an investment account despite a court order restraining dissipation of assets.

Although the court accepted that the withdrawal of funds from the investment account was used for urgent medical treatment for the parties’ child, it found that the purchase and encumbrance of the Florida property constituted a blatant violation of the prior court order.

The court concluded that striking the pleadings would be disproportionate but that protective relief was required.

The respondent’s interest in the matrimonial home was vested in the applicant pending trial, subject to the trial judge’s ultimate determination.

The applicants brought a motion at the outset of a scheduled trial seeking to strike the respondent’s allegations of fraud relating to a prior family law settlement and order.

The respondent alleged that the applicants intentionally failed to disclose income, assets, and bank accounts when the minutes of settlement were executed, thereby fraudulently inducing the settlement.

The court held that the issue of fraud had not previously been adjudicated and therefore cause of action estoppel did not apply.

The court further found that issues such as inducement, due diligence, alleged joint ventures, and inconsistencies in prior evidence required a full evidentiary record.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed to trial on the fraud allegations.

In family litigation following separation, the applicant brought a motion seeking enforcement of prior disclosure orders and requested a daily monetary penalty for non-compliance under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The court reviewed the respondent’s disclosure relating to two corporations and inter‑company financial transactions and found significant deficiencies, including missing invoices, incomplete financial records, and failure to provide a detailed general ledger.

The court concluded that the respondent had not complied with earlier disclosure orders and that the explanations provided were insufficient.

The respondent was ordered to produce specified financial records and explanations by a set deadline, failing which daily penalties of $500 would apply.

The respondent was also directed to bring a motion requiring a third party associated with a related corporation to produce corporate financial records.