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, George Chuvalo, brought a family law proceeding.

The respondent wife argued that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 10(2) of the Divorce Act to allow for reconciliation.

The court held a trial on the threshold issue of whether the applicant had the capacity to decide to reconcile or divorce.

Relying on expert medical evidence, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to decide whether to reconcile, as he could not appreciate the consequences of such a decision.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as his litigation guardian.

The court held a case conference to determine next steps in a complex family law dispute involving multiple proceedings, including a guardianship application.

The core issues were whether the applicant husband had the capacity to instruct counsel and to seek a divorce, and whether the parties desired to reconcile under s. 10 of the Divorce Act.

The court ordered a five-day trial to determine these discrete issues of capacity and reconciliation, imposing time limits on the presentation of evidence and placing the burden of proof on the applicant husband.

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.

The court issued an endorsement to clarify a previous order enforcing signed Minutes of Settlement between the parties.

The parties had disagreed on the terms of the formal order and attempted to insert newly negotiated terms regarding their separation agreement into the draft order.

The court rejected these additions, noting that the formal order had already been settled in the previous endorsement.

The court directed the respondent's counsel to submit the original draft order with only the specific amendments previously ordered, and clarified a prior costs award.

The moving party brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties, and preferably to enforce an unsigned Separation Agreement.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement were binding and in full force, as the responding party had already received over $2.1 million and monthly spousal support under its terms.

The court declined to enforce the unsigned Separation Agreement but settled the terms of the formal order enforcing the Minutes of Settlement.

The responding party was ordered to pay costs of $5,500.

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 applicant brought a motion seeking interim child support after a shared parenting arrangement ended when the respondent relocated and began operating a dog‑boarding business that generated minimal income.

The respondent argued that support should be based on his actual business income.

The court found that the respondent was intentionally underemployed within the meaning of s. 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, noting his limited efforts to obtain comparable employment, the voluntary decision to invest his time and savings in a start‑up business with little anticipated income, and his historical earning capacity from long‑term employment.

Relying on prior earnings history and the principles in Lawson v. Lawson and Drygala v. Pauli, the court imputed income of $60,000.

Interim child support for two children was ordered retroactive to January 1, 2011 with credit for amounts already paid.

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.