Susan Vella

The applicant father sought to change a temporary, without prejudice, consent parenting order to a graduated 2-2-3 schedule for the child (TRL).

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing the proposed schedule would be too disruptive given the child's young age and existing routine.

The court, noting the "without prejudice" nature of the prior order, determined that a material change in circumstances was not required.

After considering the child's best interests, including her age, development, routine, and relationship with her maternal great-grandmother, the court granted a more gradual increase in the father's parenting time, ordering one midweek overnight on alternating Tuesdays and Thursdays, in addition to the existing alternate weekend schedule.

This endorsement concerns the approval of a settlement involving a party under disability and directions for the appointment of a litigation guardian.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), acting as statutory guardian of property for the respondent wife, moved for approval of Minutes of Settlement covering all issues except divorce.

The court approved the settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the evidentiary requirements met.

Additionally, the court provided directions for the appointment of a litigation guardian for the respondent to address the outstanding divorce application, clarifying that the PGT's statutory jurisdiction does not extend to consenting to a divorce.

The decision outlines the procedure for appointing a litigation guardian under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as the Family Law Rules are silent on this matter.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Respondent (Mother) was largely successful on parenting issues and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs, arguing her pre-motion proposals constituted valid offers to settle under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant (Father) contended these proposals were not Rule 18 offers as they predated his motion.

The court found that pre-motion proposals can indeed be valid offers to settle for cost purposes, as Rule 18 allows offers "even before the case has started." The court awarded the Respondent $44,500 in full recovery costs, considering the Applicant's conduct, including attacking the Respondent's mental health and attempting to admit inadmissible surreptitious recordings.

This motion concerned the interpretation and enforcement of a consent Final Order regarding the sale of a matrimonial home and the Applicant's Right of First Refusal (ROFR).

The Applicant sought to transfer the Respondent's interest in the home to her, asserting she validly exercised her ROFR based on a "realistic offer" as defined in the Final Order.

The Respondent cross-moved to re-list the home, arguing no "realistic offer" was received and that the parties had repudiated the original sale terms by jointly retaining two realtors.

The court found that the Final Order's terms were modified by mutual agreement to accommodate two realtors, and that a recommendation to accept the offer was made, triggering the ROFR.

The court also determined the Applicant validly exercised her ROFR before the offer expired.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, having been entirely successful in the liability phase of a bifurcated proceeding concerning the status of the "Disputed Beach" as reserve land, sought costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs awards and apportionment among the multiple defendants.

The court awarded Saugeen their costs on a partial indemnity scale, totaling $3,221,802.54, on a joint and several liability basis.

These costs were apportioned for indemnification purposes among Canada (10%), Ontario (40%), and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (50%).

Additionally, the court granted Canada a Sanderson order, requiring the Town to pay Canada $470,000 in partial indemnity costs, recognizing Canada's success on the essential issue of the reserve boundary location.

The Town's claim for costs against Canada was dismissed.

The case concerns the equalization of net family property following a divorce.

Key issues included the valuation and exclusion of jewellery, the valuation of Pakistani investment certificates (Habib Bank Certificates), the beneficial ownership of Behbood Savings Certificates, the characterization of monetary gifts to the respondent's sisters, the treatment of religious Dasond obligations as a debt, and whether funds received from the respondent's brother constituted a loan.

The court determined the proper valuation of jewellery, found the premature encashment of Habib Certificates resulted in a loss borne by the respondent, dismissed the claim of beneficial ownership in Behbood Certificates, attributed a portion of the gifts to the respondent's net family property due to reckless depletion, ruled Dasond is not a secular debt, and found the brother's funds were a gift, not a loan.

Post-separation adjustments and dower claims were also addressed.

This motion concerned the interpretation and enforcement of a Separation Agreement, specifically its security provisions for spousal support, following the Respondent's terminal cancer diagnosis and alleged asset depletion.

The Applicant sought to prevent the Respondent from undermining her beneficial interest in his estate by transferring assets to their son.

The court found the Respondent breached the agreement by terminating a family trust and adding their son as a joint account holder to other accounts with the improper purpose of removing assets from the estate.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation and good faith, the court ordered damages for the trust breach as a first charge on the estate and enjoined the Respondent from further improperly depleting the large investment account or transferring assets to their son by survivorship or gift, while allowing for legitimate personal and medical expenses.

The Applicant sought to set aside a 2006 separation agreement and requested interim spousal support.

The Respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court dismissed the Respondent's summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of fact requiring a trial regarding non-disclosure, unconscionability, duress, and undue influence concerning the separation agreement.

The Applicant's motion for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice due to significant delay and lack of assets to repay if the agreement is upheld.

The court ordered a joint settlement/trial management conference to expedite a trial date.

This endorsement addresses costs following a parenting motion where both the Applicant Father and Respondent Mother sought costs on different bases, claiming substantial success.

The motion concerned primary residence, parenting schedule, a therapeutic order, and the presence of a paternal grandparents' dog.

The court found that neither party achieved a result as good as or better than their offers to settle.

A significant factor in the costs decision was the parties' intransigence, particularly regarding the dog issue, and their use of surreptitious recordings.

The court emphasized that such recordings foster deceit and hinder productive discussions, generally not serving the child's best interests.

Given the mixed success, mutual intransigence, and problematic litigation conduct, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The Applicant (Mother) sought orders for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the Respondent's (Father's) consent for the sale process, and vacant possession.

The Respondent consented to the sale and vacating but opposed dispensing with his consent, arguing for repairs and a say in the process.

The court found the Respondent unreasonably withheld consent given his lack of cooperation, financial non-contribution to the home, and precarious financial situation.

The court granted the Applicant's requests, ordering the sale, vacant possession, and dispensing with the Respondent's consent for the sale process.

Net proceeds are to be held in trust, and parties are directed to mediation for distribution.

The applicant sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain the respondent from continuing divorce proceedings commenced in China, arguing that the Ontario court had jurisdiction and was the more appropriate forum.

The respondent opposed, requesting an adjournment pending the outcome of third-party lawsuits in China and claiming potential injustice if unable to pursue adultery-based compensation under Chinese law.

The court granted the anti-suit injunction, affirming its jurisdiction based on the respondent's attornment and a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

It found no unjust deprivation for the respondent, as the alleged claim for adultery-based compensation was not recognized under Canadian no-fault divorce law, and the Ontario court was capable of adjudicating foreign debts for equalization purposes without delay.

The applicant father sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed, citing potential adverse impacts on their autistic child's mental health and prejudice to her equalization and support claims.

The court found no expert evidence to support the claim of adverse impact on the child's health and determined that the mother's financial claims could be adequately protected by holding sale proceeds in trust.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering the sale of the matrimonial home with closing delayed until the end of the school year to mitigate disruption for the children.

The Respondent Wife brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Applicant Husband committed the tort of intrusion upon seclusion by intercepting her private emails and Facebook messages and attaching them to his settlement conference brief.

The Husband argued the communications were not publicly distributed and that declaratory relief was inappropriate.

The court found the Husband intentionally accessed private communications without consent or lawful justification, and that a reasonable person would find this highly offensive.

The court granted the declaration, finding it timely and efficient, but reserved ancillary remedies like damages to the trial judge as they were not sought in the motion.

This is a motion for an interim parenting schedule concerning two children, aged nine and six.

The Applicant Father sought equal parenting time (2-2-5-5 schedule), while the Respondent Mother sought a 60/40 split in her favour (6 nights with Father, 8 nights with Mother every two weeks), along with a mutual right of refusal.

The court found the Mother to be the primary caregiver based on detailed evidence and third-party affidavits, contrasting with the Father's less particularized assertions.

Considering the children's best interests, their strong attachment to the Mother, and the Mother's primary caregiving role, the court granted the Mother's proposed 60/40 parenting schedule on a temporary basis, along with exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the Father on consent.

This endorsement determines costs following a trial involving two consolidated insurance claims: a Wall Collapse Claim and a Fire Loss Claim.

The plaintiffs (Lalani) succeeded on the Fire Loss Claim against Intact Insurance, being awarded substantial damages, while their Wall Collapse Claim was dismissed.

A negligence claim against the Broker (D.M. Edwards and CG&B) related to the Fire Loss Claim was also dismissed.

The court allocated costs 70% to the Fire Loss Claim and 30% to the Wall Collapse Claim.

Lalani was awarded partial and substantial indemnity costs against Intact for the Fire Loss Claim.

No costs were awarded for the dismissed claim against the Broker due to their adversarial position and the nature of their offer to settle.

Intact was awarded partial and substantial indemnity costs against Lalani for the dismissed Wall Collapse Claim, based on a public policy objective of promoting settlements.

This judgment addresses various parenting and child support issues between former spouses.

The Father sought a declaration of primary residence for the children, retroactive child support from the Mother, and sole decision-making for the youngest child.

The Mother sought joint decision-making, a shared parenting schedule, and arrears from the Father.

The court found a material change in circumstances, imputed income to the Mother, and ordered her to pay retroactive child support to the Father.

For the youngest child, Hannah, the court ordered joint decision-making and a shared parenting schedule.

The Mother's claim for pre-July 2021 arrears from the Father was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The court also clarified the allocation of Section 7 expenses and Canada Child Benefit eligibility in shared parenting arrangements.

The Applicant Father sought the return of his son to Balch Springs, Texas, U.S.A., under Article 12 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alleging wrongful removal and retention by the Respondent Mother in Toronto.

The Mother relied on Article 13 exceptions, asserting the Father's subsequent acquiescence to the child's retention or, alternatively, a grave risk of harm upon return.

The court found that while Texas was the child's habitual residence and the Father did not initially consent to the removal, he subsequently unequivocally acquiesced to the child's retention in Ontario through his conduct and communications over several months.

The Mother's alternative argument regarding grave risk of harm was not proven to meet the high threshold required by the Convention.

Consequently, the Father's application for the child's return was dismissed based on the finding of acquiescence.

The respondent father sought an order for reunification therapy for the child, alleging parental alienation by the applicant mother.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the cause of the family dysfunction was unclear on the evidence, there was no compelling evidence that the proposed therapy would be beneficial, and the motion was brought too close to trial.

The court preferred to defer the determination of therapeutic orders and family violence allegations to trial, where a more fulsome evidentiary record and witness credibility assessment would be possible.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Applicant Mother was in breach of previous court orders, a compliance order, and parenting orders, including changing the summer holiday schedule and prohibiting the child from sleeping in the same bed as either parent.

The court found that the Father had not proven material non-compliance by the Mother, noting only isolated incidents of minor non-compliance.

The court also ruled that the Father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances required to vary an interim parenting order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the requested substantive relief was not in the child's best interests and lacked expert evidence.

This was an uncontested trial where the Applicant sought divorce, child support, sole decision-making authority, and supervised parenting time for the children.

A preliminary issue of jurisdiction under the Divorce Act was addressed, with the court finding sufficient evidence of the Syrian marriage.

The court granted sole decision-making authority to the Applicant mother, ordered supervised parenting time for the Respondent father due to his lack of involvement and allegations of family violence, and imputed income to the father for child support calculations, ordering retroactive and ongoing support.