Steven Fried

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim relief regarding the matrimonial home, seeking a vesting order, exclusive possession, or an order dispensing with the applicant husband's consent to refinance a line of credit secured against the home.

The court dismissed the requests for a vesting order and exclusive possession, finding them premature before an equalization order or determination of the separation date.

However, the court granted an order dispensing with the husband's consent to allow the wife to refinance the home up to $187,000 to reduce her monthly carrying costs.

The court also struck several paragraphs of the husband's factum for being inflammatory.

Following a motion regarding child support where success was divided, the court considered the issue of costs.

Although divided success normally results in no costs, the court examined the parties' offers to settle under Rule 24(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the applicant's offers to be extremely reasonable and the respondent's offer to be unreasonable.

Consequently, the applicant was awarded costs fixed at $6,357.38.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a previous order, seeking the respondent father's proportionate share of their adult daughter's post-secondary expenses for her final two years of university.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that the daughter was no longer a child of the marriage during those years, along with retroactive recalculation of child support and section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding the daughter earned substantial income and could meet her own expenses.

The court also dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, finding the daughter remained a child of the marriage while pursuing full-time studies and living with the applicant.

The respondent's claims for retroactive recalculations were also dismissed.

The respondent husband brought a motion to vary spousal support provisions contained in Final Minutes of Settlement following a significant decline in his income from self-employment.

The court considered whether arrears of support barred the motion, whether the Divorce Act or the Family Law Act governed, and whether a material change in circumstances had occurred.

Interpreting the settlement agreement, the court held that a material change tied to income or employment was contemplated by the parties and that the respondent’s approximately 50% decline in business income constituted such a change.

The court varied the support order and directed that spousal support be recalculated using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to equalize the parties’ net disposable income, subject to specified adjustments.

Following a family law motion in which the moving party was entirely successful, the court determined the quantum of costs payable by the applicant and respondent.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the mandatory full recovery provision for bad faith under sub‑rule 24(8).

The court found that both opposing parties had acted in bad faith by making false statements, abusing the court process, and advancing unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

After reviewing the complexity of the issues, reasonableness of conduct, offers to settle, counsel’s hourly rate, and time spent, the court concluded the claimed full indemnity costs were fair and reasonable.

Costs of $23,887.57 inclusive of HST and disbursements were awarded and ordered payable immediately.

The moving party, the maternal aunt of two children residing in Kuwait, brought a motion to be added as a party and to set aside two previous Ontario custody orders granted to the children's father and paternal aunt.

The moving party alleged the orders were obtained through fraud, as the children had never habitually resided in Canada.

The court found overwhelming evidence, including Kuwaiti entry/exit records and medical documents, proving the father fabricated his claims of the children's residence in Ontario.

The court applied the test for civil fraud, added the maternal aunt as a party, and set aside the previous custody orders.