Steven M. Bookman

The applicant mother brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' two children to Florida, alleging the respondent father wrongfully removed them to Toronto.

The parties had signed a separation agreement permitting a temporary relocation to Florida, conditional on the mother obtaining an E2 visa and U.S. health insurance by a six-month review date.

The mother failed to meet these conditions.

The court applied the hybrid approach to habitual residence and found the children remained habitually resident in Ontario.

The father's return of the children to Toronto was not wrongful as it accorded with the conditional terms of the separation agreement.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from the City of Toronto to the City of London.

The plaintiff's action alleged a conspiracy in awarding contracts for forestry operations in the City of London, seeking $31 million in damages.

The court applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that all enumerated factors favoured the transfer, as the events, damages, subject-matter, and witnesses were all located in London.

The motion was granted and the action was ordered transferred.

The applicant father brought an emergency motion to reinstate his regular access schedule to his daughter.

The respondent mother had withheld access after the father was arrested for a domestic incident involving his current partner, although the charges were subsequently dropped.

The mother proposed suspending overnight access pending input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found no viable reason to permit unsupervised daytime access while denying overnight access, and ordered the father's parenting time reinstated forthwith.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking interim sole custody, a change of school, and a s. 30 assessment for the parties' four-year-old child.

The applicant mother opposed the relief and sought a restraining order against the father.

The court ordered temporary joint decision-making and expanded the father's parenting time to six nights out of fourteen, finding both parents capable despite their high conflict and mutual allegations.

The court dismissed the father's requests to change the child's school and for a s. 30 assessment, noting the assessment would cause unnecessary delay and was not required.

The mother's request for a restraining order was also dismissed for lack of objective evidence supporting a reasonable fear for her safety.

No costs were awarded.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim child and spousal support order to the Divisional Court.

The interim order imputed income to the moving party due to non-disclosure and questionable business deductions.

The court applied the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the interim order, and no issues of general or public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the responding party.

Following an undefended trial in a common-law family dispute, the court addressed claims for child support, spousal support, and property remedies grounded in unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and proprietary estoppel.

The applicant alleged that the respondent used her assets to acquire numerous investment properties in Canada and Florida and concealed ownership through corporations solely controlled by him.

The court found that the parties had engaged in a joint family venture and that the respondent had wrongfully diverted and concealed assets, depriving the applicant of her contributions.

Applying principles from Kerr v. Baranow and related authorities, the court awarded a constructive trust remedy and ordered the respondent to pay US$2.2 million reflecting the value of the Florida properties.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for support purposes and ordered child support, lump sum spousal support, and related financial relief.