Tanya N. Road

The applicant, Marian Elizabeth Breukelman, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis after successfully defending a motion by the respondent, Dario Antonio Miret, to remove her lawyers for an alleged conflict of interest.

The court, M.D. Faieta J., assessed the costs considering factors such as the applicant's success, the complexity and importance of the issues, the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle, and the reasonableness of the time claimed by multiple counsel.

The court found the motion complex and important, and that the respondent failed to meet his obligation to settle.

While acknowledging the use of multiple counsel, the court found the total time claimed excessive and adjusted the costs downward.

The applicant, Marion Breukelman, sought to consolidate two civil proceedings (a civil action and an employment action) into her ongoing family law application.

The court granted the motion for consolidation, finding that the proceedings shared common questions of fact and law, particularly regarding the beneficial ownership of shares in a family business (R. Avis Surveying Inc.).

The court emphasized that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, save legal expenses for the parties, and, most importantly, avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments across the related proceedings.

Despite concerns raised by the respondent and other parties about inconvenience, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured consolidation, noting that the Family Law Rules provide tools for efficient case management.

The applicant mother sought temporary child and spousal support from the respondent father.

The parties had a brief relationship lasting approximately 11 months (January to November 2014), cohabited for three months, and had a daughter born in October 2014.

The father claimed to have no income due to injuries and depression from multiple car accidents, while the mother sought to impute income of $500,000 annually based on bank deposits, lifestyle, and casino activity.

The court found the father's evidence regarding his financial situation to be dishonest and unreliable, imputed annual income of $150,000, and ordered child support of $1,263 per month commencing January 1, 2016.

The mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed as she failed to establish that the parties cohabited in a relationship of some permanence as required by the Family Law Act.

Postmedia Network Inc. brought a motion to set aside a sealing order and publication ban granted on consent in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The respondent opposed the motion, citing privacy, commercial interests, and the best interests of the children.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that the respondent failed to establish a serious risk to the administration of justice that would justify a complete sealing order.

The court vacated the sealing order but imposed a limited publication ban to protect the identities and privacy of the children, as well as personal identifiers to prevent identity theft.

In a high-conflict family law dispute following a long-term marriage, the applicant sought extensive interim relief including the appointment of a receiver, interim disbursements, support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent's financial circumstances were complex, involving multiple corporations and a significant pending tax liability.

The court declined to appoint a receiver but ordered the appointment of a joint expert to determine the respondent's income, requiring the respondent to pay the $50,000 retainer.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $25,000 in interim disbursements to level the playing field, awarded interim child and spousal support based on an imputed income, and granted the applicant temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

Ontario corporations sought to discharge notices of unsecured interests registered on title to their Toronto properties by an individual who was engaged in family law litigation in California against the corporations’ owner.

The respondent sought a stay of the application, arguing forum non conveniens and requesting that the Ontario court decline jurisdiction in favour of the California proceedings.

The court held that by filing a Notice of Appearance the respondent had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Ontario court, rendering forum non conveniens inapplicable.

The respondent had not obtained recognition or enforcement of any foreign order and the corporate applicants were not parties to the foreign litigation.

The court dismissed the motion to stay and granted the application discharging the notices from title.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought a motion seeking a warrant of committal to incarcerate the respondent for 180 days for failure to pay court-ordered child and spousal support.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to set aside the default order and the dismissal of his prior change motion.

The court found that the respondent had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances since the default order was made and that his credibility was severely undermined by numerous inconsistencies in his evidence.

The court granted the warrant of committal for 180 days or until the outstanding default of $26,130.21 was paid.