Vilma Radfar

The applicant wife brought a motion to stay the respondent husband's motion to change until he pays $17,672.33 in outstanding costs orders, and sought $10,000 as security for costs.

The husband argued the motion was premature as the validity of an agreement waving financial rights had not been determined.

The court found non-compliance with costs orders and that the husband habitually resides outside Ontario.

The court ordered the motion to change stayed unless the husband pays the costs and posts security in trust.

The case was a trial concerning parenting and child support for the parties' five-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother sought final orders for primary residence, sole decision-making authority, and retroactive child support.

The respondent father sought primary residence with him, sole decision-making (with an exception for religion), shared parenting time, and no ongoing or retroactive child support.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to remain in the mother's primary care with the mother having sole decision-making authority.

The court imputed the father's income due to inadequate financial disclosure and ordered retroactive child support and ongoing support, along with a specific parenting time schedule.

The applicant (mother) brought a motion to strike the respondent's (father's) Answer/Claim due to his failure to pay child support as per a temporary court order.

The father sought an extension of time to comply and opposed the striking of his Answer/Claim.

The court dismissed the father's request for an extension and struck his Answer/Claim regarding financial issues, citing his abysmal payment history, unreasonable conduct, and preference of his own interests over the children's.

The court also set out the father's limited participation in the upcoming support hearing and adjourned the determination of costs for the motion to the support hearing.

Following a motion where the mother successfully obtained an order conditionally striking the father's pleadings for failure to pay child support, the mother sought costs of $7,561.65.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, noting that none met the strict technical requirements of Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules because they were unsigned by the parties.

However, considering the offers under Rule 24(12), the mother's success, and the father's unreasonable conduct in failing to pay support while purchasing a $60,000 vehicle, the court awarded the mother fixed costs of $4,000.

This trial addressed several financial issues arising from a marital breakdown, primarily concerning the equalization of net family property.

The central dispute was whether a $125,000 promissory note, signed by the wife in favour of her mother related to the transfer of a matrimonial home, constituted a deductible debt or a gift.

The court found the transfer was not a gift and discounted the promissory note's value to 10% for equalization purposes.

Other issues included the valuation of household contents, the treatment of income replacement benefits, and post-separation house expenses.

The court ultimately ordered the husband to pay the wife an equalization payment and contribution for house expenses.