Stephen Codas

The moving party brought a motion to consolidate the responding party's civil proceeding for defamation and malicious prosecution with their ongoing family law proceeding, and to strike the responding party's pleadings for non-compliance with multiple court orders.

The court granted the consolidation to avoid inconsistent findings and duplicate legal fees.

The court also struck the responding party's pleadings due to her blatant disregard for twelve previous court orders, her inappropriate conduct in stealing the moving party's private emails, and her failure to attend the motion hearing.

The matter was directed to proceed to an uncontested trial, and the moving party was awarded full indemnity costs.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to recognize a final custody and access order from the United Kingdom as an order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under section 41(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging breaches of the order and seeking to vary it.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mandatory criteria for recognizing an extra-provincial order were met and none of the statutory exceptions applied.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the U.K. order was recognized.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

The husband's father brought an action to enforce an $800,000 mortgage registered against the matrimonial home, which was consolidated with the family law proceedings.

The court found the mortgage was a sham designed to protect the husband's equity and dismissed the father's claim against the wife.

In the family law action, the court determined the date of separation, valued the husband's corporate interests, and found the husband had manipulated his business affairs to defeat the wife's claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $300,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and corporate benefits, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $489,354, retroactive support of $196,462, and ongoing spousal support of $7,000 per month (or a lump sum of $585,000).

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

The husband's father brought an action to enforce an $800,000 mortgage registered against the matrimonial home, which was consolidated with the family law proceedings.

The court found the mortgage was a sham designed to protect the husband's equity and dismissed the father's claim against the wife.

In the family law action, the court determined the date of separation, valued the husband's corporate interests, and found the husband had manipulated his business affairs to defeat the wife's claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $300,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and corporate benefits, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $489,354, retroactive support of $196,462, and ongoing spousal support of $7,000 per month (or a lump sum of $585,000).

In a family law proceeding following the breakdown of an 18‑year relationship, the applicant sought custody, child and spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and an unequal division of net family property.

At a case conference, the court addressed extensive disclosure issues between the parties concerning finances, property transactions, corporate interests, and other assets.

The court ordered both parties to produce comprehensive financial disclosure, including bank statements, tax returns, corporate records, litigation documents, and records relating to real property and business interests.

Directions were also given requiring requests to be made to several non‑parties for production of documents and permitting further motions for compliance where necessary.

The matter was scheduled to return for a settlement conference after completion of disclosure and any compliance motions.