Stephanie Yuen

The Applicant mother's motion to bifurcate the trial was settled by consent.

The Respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking leave to compel the immediate partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home or to obtain a $200,000 line of credit secured against his share.

The court dismissed the Respondent's cross-motion, primarily because he failed to obtain prior leave as mandated by a previous court order.

Addressing the merits, the court found that selling the matrimonial home would prejudice the Applicant's claims and was not in the child's best interests.

Furthermore, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to compel the encumbrance of the matrimonial home against the Applicant's objection.

This motion concerned the interpretation of "spouse" under section 29 of the Family Law Act, specifically the phrase "are the parents of a child." The applicant, Mr. Elkind, sought a declaration that he and the respondent, Ms. Addeo, were not spouses, arguing their child's death before separation negated spousal status.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the phrase means two people who have a child together while cohabiting in a relationship of some permanence are spouses, regardless of whether the child is alive at the date of separation.

The decision emphasized that economic consequences and mutual commitment arising from the decision to have a child persist even if the child does not survive.

The respondent father brought a motion to stay new orders issued by an Ontario Court of Justice judge pending appeal.

The motions judge had initially ordered the child to attend the father's preferred school, but later issued new orders changing the school to the mother's preference after realizing she had not considered all the evidence.

The motions judge also engaged in ex parte communications with the mother's counsel.

The Superior Court granted the stay, finding a strong likelihood of success on appeal due to jurisdictional errors, breach of natural justice, and reasonable apprehension of bias, and ordered the child to return to the father's preferred school pending the appeal.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim parenting orders regarding their two youngest children.

The applicant mother sought primary care of the youngest child with conditions on the respondent father's parenting time, citing concerns about his admitted history of sexual addiction and inappropriate behaviour.

The respondent sought equal parenting time on a week-about basis.

The court granted the applicant primary care of the youngest child, finding it consistent with the status quo and the child's best interests.

The court expanded the respondent's parenting time but imposed conditions prohibiting him from keeping pornographic material where the child may be and from discussing his mental health or sexual behaviour with the child.

Parenting time for the older child was ordered to be in accordance with his wishes.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child support.

The applicant father sought to reduce his child support obligation after losing his job, while the respondent mother sought to enforce the terms of their separation agreement, which calculated support based on the prior year's income.

The court found that the applicant's job loss constituted a material change in circumstances and temporarily varied the agreement to base ongoing support on his current estimated income.

However, the court also ordered the applicant to pay $34,405 in retroactive child support to account for significant increases in his income in 2019 and 2020 that had not been properly adjusted under the agreement.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the Respondent successfully obtained an order resuming parenting time with the parties' daughter, necessitated by the Applicant's non-compliance with a previous order.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the Respondent to be the successful party on the underlying motion.

The Respondent sought full indemnity costs, while the Applicant sought partial indemnity.

The court denied full indemnity costs, finding no bad faith by the Applicant and noting the Respondent's offer to settle did not meet the criteria for full recovery under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the Respondent partial indemnity costs of $3,000, all-inclusive.

The respondent brought an urgent motion to resume parenting time with the parties' daughter, which the applicant had withheld due to COVID-19 concerns.

The applicant sought to suspend the parenting schedule.

The court affirmed that existing parenting orders should continue unless there are compelling reasons for change, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for parental cooperation during the pandemic.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to suspend the schedule and ordered both parties to adhere to the existing agreement and order, along with strict COVID-19 health protocols.

The Applicant sought various interim orders including spousal and child support, retroactive support, section 7 expenses, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, payment to a joint line of credit, interim disbursement, sale of a yacht, and a preservation order.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion to strike parts of the Applicant's affidavit and compel undertakings.

The court imputed an income of $300,000 to the Respondent for interim support purposes, declined to impute income to the Applicant, and ordered temporary spousal support of $7,000/month and child support of $2,878/month.

Retroactive support was adjourned to trial.

The court denied the interim disbursement request but ordered the sale of the yacht with net proceeds split equally after paying a loan.

Both parties were ordered to provide outstanding disclosure and undertakings.

A preservation order was continued with an added notice requirement for the Respondent's business shares.

The Respondent's request to strike evidence was dismissed.

Following a motion with divided success regarding an adjournment and changes to a parenting regime, both parties sought costs.

The court found that neither party could be characterized as the successful party, as both had mixed successes and failures.

The court declined to apportion costs on an issue-by-issue basis, noting it would be inefficient and inappropriate given the interdependent sub-issues.

Finding no bad faith and that neither party beat their settlement offers, the court ordered no costs payable by either party.

The father brought motions to adjourn the trial and to increase his parenting time with the child, including overnight access.

The mother opposed the increase in parenting time and requested an update to a s. 30 assessment.

The court granted the adjournment of the trial due to counsel's unavailability and the need for the father to respond to an expert income report.

However, the court denied the father's request to change the temporary parenting order, emphasizing the principle against disturbing temporary orders prior to trial without compelling reasons.

The court also denied the mother's request for an updated s. 30 assessment due to the broken relationship between the father and the assessor, and made specific orders for further disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion seeking reimbursement for s. 7 expenses, further advances, and orders regarding a child's treatment and custody.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with s. 7 expense orders, including failing to pay tuition, which caused a crisis for one child.

The court ordered the respondent to immediately reimburse the applicant for a specific university tuition payment.

The remaining s. 7 claims and the motions concerning the child's custody and treatment were adjourned, with the court noting the respondent's lack of collaboration and late disclosure as contributing factors to the ongoing issues and delays.

Directions for cost submissions were also provided, with the court highlighting the respondent's conduct.