Ursula Cebulak

This trial concerned the validity and enforceability of Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties after mediation.

The applicant sought to uphold the agreement, while the respondent argued it should be set aside due to alleged non-disclosure of assets and a lack of understanding of the agreement's nature and consequences, including claims of unconscionability and ineffective counsel.

The court found the Minutes of Settlement valid and enforceable, rejecting the respondent's arguments regarding non-disclosure, lack of understanding, and unconscionability, emphasizing that the respondent had legal representation and ample time to consider the agreement.

Following a family law trial with equally divided success, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the outcomes on spousal support, child support, chattels, and loans, concluding that neither party was more successful than the other.

Settlement offers and conduct were neutral factors.

Consequently, the court made no order as to costs.

Additionally, the court finalized the arrears for section 7 expenses, ordering the husband to pay $27,844.00 as clarified by the wife, rejecting the husband's attempt to re-litigate the legitimacy of the expenses post-trial.

The parties separated after a rocky marriage.

The husband, who was recently diagnosed with advanced cancer, sought repayment of loans he advanced to the wife's daycare business, as well as child support adjustments and chattels.

The wife sought a divorce, sole decision-making responsibility, and spousal support.

The court granted the divorce and sole decision-making responsibility to the wife.

Spousal support was denied based on a valid marriage contract.

The court imputed the husband's income at $50,000 for child support purposes due to his illness.

The court found the advances to the wife's business were loans, but most were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period, ordering the wife to repay only $40,346 which she had acknowledged to her accountant.

Following a motion in which the moving party was fully successful, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The moving party sought full recovery of $4,886.69 due to the responding party's failure to comply with court orders.

The court fixed costs at $4,000, an amount above partial indemnity but less than full recovery, noting the responding party's non-compliance did not quite justify an extraordinary order for full costs.

The court also deferred scheduling a further hearing regarding the sale of the property to allow the responding party's intended appeal and stay motion to advance.

The respondent mother brought a motion to compel the applicant father to file his application and financial disclosure, for a non-disparagement order, and for the pre-trial sale of the matrimonial home.

The father had failed to comply with previous court orders regarding disclosure and had delayed the proceedings.

The court allowed the mother to become the applicant in the proceeding.

The court also expanded an existing non-disparagement order due to evidence of the father denigrating the mother to the children.

Finally, the court ordered the pre-trial sale of the matrimonial home, finding that a sale was inevitable for financial reasons and that the father had not established that a sale would prejudice his rights or be contrary to the children's best interests.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the release of net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, child support, allocation of chattels, and costs.

The court ordered the release of the net sale proceeds to the respondent, dismissing the applicant's request to hold back $400,000 for alleged loans, as that issue required a trial.

The court denied the respondent's request for security for future child support but ordered the applicant to pay child support arrears from his share of the sale proceeds.

A referee was appointed to allocate chattels, and the applicant was awarded $12,908.15 in costs for prior successful proceedings.

The mother brought a motion to change to implement child and spousal support formulas based on the father's significantly increased income, which reached $2.29 million in 2019.

The father argued the table amount for child support was inappropriate under section 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and sought to vary the spousal support order to exclude the mother from sharing in his post-separation income increase.

The court found the table amount for child support was inappropriate as it would result in an unwarranted capital transfer, capping the father's income for child support purposes at $500,000.

However, the court dismissed the father's request to vary spousal support, finding the increase in his income did not constitute a material change sufficient to warrant varying the existing consent order.

The applicant husband sought a declaration that the parties' 2009 marriage contract was valid.

The respondent wife challenged its validity, alleging duress, inadequate financial disclosure, and unconscionability.

At trial, the wife chose not to cross-examine the husband or his former lawyer on the issues of duress or unconscionability, violating the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The court found that the wife failed to establish grounds to set aside the contract under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, noting that she had independent legal advice, the contract listed the husband's corporate interests, and she did not pursue further disclosure at the time.

The marriage contract was declared valid.

The applicant mother sought to relocate the children's residence to Texas.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing that the parties' separation agreement strictly prohibited relocation for seven years.

The court interpreted the separation agreement and found it permitted relocation with consent or a court order, meaning there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion but stayed the application, ordering the parties to proceed to arbitration pursuant to the dispute resolution clause in the separation agreement.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order allowing the parties' three children to travel to Texas for her parenting time during the Christmas holidays.

The respondent father opposed the motion, citing a recent consent order precluding international travel without a quarantine exemption, and the health risks and school disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the consent order was determinative and that, in any event, the proposed travel and subsequent quarantine were not in the children's best interests.

The court determined costs for previous motions where the applicant mother's motion was dismissed and the respondent father's responding motion was successful.

The father sought full recovery costs due to the mother's unreasonable behaviour and his offer to settle being exceeded.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, including ignoring a separation agreement and proposing unsafe travel for children during COVID-19, but not rising to bad faith.

Considering the father's superior offer to settle and the mother's unreasonable conduct, the court fixed the father's costs at $6,500, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to travel with the parties' three children to Texas for her summer parenting time, despite a separation agreement requiring the children's residence to remain in Toronto.

The respondent father opposed the motion due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the closure of the Canada-US border, and concerns that the mother intended to permanently relocate the children to Texas.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that non-essential travel to a COVID-19 hotspot would recklessly expose the children to risk and was not in their best interests.

The court ordered that the children remain in Canada and adopted the father's proposed summer schedule.

The applicant, John Maximo Clemente, brought a 14B motion for leave for an urgent Case Conference regarding access issues for his three-year-old son, "D".

The respondent, Rachel Sara O’Brien, opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the meaning of "pressing" as per the May 19, 2020 Notice to the Profession, concluding it requires a threshold no less than that for an urgent motion under Rosen v. Rosen.

The court found that the applicant had not seen his son since an altercation in November 2019, which led to criminal charges and a recognizance prohibiting contact with the respondent.

The court determined that the applicant's request did not meet the test for either an urgent or pressing issue, as there were no immediate health, safety, or economic concerns for the child, and the applicant had not engaged in genuine settlement discussions or explored available options for supervised access.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were encouraged to engage in out-of-court discussions.

The applicant father sought leave to bring an urgent motion for parenting time with his three children, alleging the respondent mother had denied contact since a domestic incident.

The respondent mother opposed, asserting willingness for a week-about arrangement and disputing the father's claims.

The court found the applicant's initial letter misleading and the respondent's letter violated court protocols by exceeding page limits and including privileged information.

The court declined to find present urgency for a motion but scheduled a case conference to assist parties in resolving issues and to determine urgency as an element of case management.

Following a seven-day family law trial where the applicant's motion to change custody was dismissed, the respondent sought her full costs.

The court considered the applicant's unreasonable behavior during the litigation and his highly abusive and contemptuous email sent to the court after the trial decision was released.

Emphasizing the need to sanction inappropriate behavior by self-represented litigants, the court awarded the respondent her full costs of $31,658.00.

The applicant father brought a motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking to remain in the home with the parties' special needs daughters.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an immediate sale would cause undue disruption to the children's educational and daily routines.

The court ordered that the home not be listed for sale until at least the end of the current academic year to serve the best interests of the children.