Vincenzo Ruso

The applicant sought to expand his parenting time with the two children of the marriage.

The respondent opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and raising concerns about the applicant's alleged substance abuse.

The court found several compelling material changes, including the children becoming school-aged, an incident exposing children to adult conflict, and the applicant's changed work schedule.

The court granted an expansion of parenting time, implementing a graduated schedule leading to overnight visits, and ordered the applicant to undergo drug and alcohol testing.

In an uncontested family law trial following the applicant wife's bankruptcy, the court determined the equalization of net family properties.

The respondent husband claimed an equalization payment of over $3.5 million, while the wife's Trustee in Bankruptcy calculated the payment at $487,000.

The court resolved disputes over the valuation of the matrimonial home, corporate interests, bank accounts, and tax liabilities, ultimately ordering the wife to pay an equalization payment of $497,944.02.

The husband's claims for post-separation adjustments and spousal support were dismissed, the latter without prejudice due to insufficient evidence.

Erich Genseberger moved to annul the bankruptcy of Kate Alexander under s. 181(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, alleging insolvency was not met or that the assignment was an abuse of process due to her conduct in ongoing family law proceedings and asset dissipation.

The Trustee and other creditors opposed, arguing the Debtor was insolvent at the time of assignment and her past conduct, while problematic, did not constitute an abuse of process for annulment purposes.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Debtor was insolvent at the time of assignment and her conduct, while frustrating, did not meet the high bar for abuse of process required for annulment.

The family law stay was lifted to allow the equalization claim to proceed, and the matrimonial home was ordered to be sold by the Trustee for the benefit of all creditors.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with his three children from supervised access to unsupervised and overnight parenting time.

The respondent mother opposed, citing historical allegations of family violence and the father's criminal charges, which were resolved by a peace bond.

The court found that supervised access had been inappropriately used as a long-term remedy and that the mother's refusal to consent to a reasonable schedule was not protective gatekeeping but rather an inappropriate delay of normalized parenting time.

The court ordered a step-up parenting plan transitioning to unsupervised overnight parenting time and awarded costs to the father.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought cross-motions concerning the relocation of their two children from Brampton to Scarborough.

The mother sought permission to move due to the sale of her parents' home, while the father opposed the move and sought primary residence or increased parenting time.

The court found that the mother had a compelling reason to relocate but determined that the move, as proposed, was not entirely in the children's best interests, particularly regarding the disruption to the status quo and the impact on the father-child relationship.

Applying the new Children's Law Reform Act provisions, the court ordered an interim arrangement of equal week-about parenting time for both parents, with the children to be enrolled in their previous Brampton school or an alternative Catholic school in Toronto, aiming to minimize travel and maintain stability until trial.

The applicant brought a contempt motion to enforce a final order regarding the return of household possessions.

The applicant had hired private investigators to surreptitiously enter the respondent's home under false pretenses to take photographs and videos of the items.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, holding that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law and should not be used as a first step for enforcement.

The court also noted it would have declined to exercise its discretion to grant contempt due to the applicant's unacceptable conduct in using private investigators.

Furthermore, the court criticized the applicant's counsel for failing to comply with principles of civility and professionalism by unilaterally scheduling the motion and refusing reasonable adjournment requests.

Following a family law motion concerning children’s schooling and daycare arrangements, the largely successful party sought a costs award.

The court applied the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the relative success of the parties, the parties’ conduct, offers to settle, and their respective financial circumstances.

Although the moving party sought full indemnity costs exceeding $13,000, the court considered that an earlier offer to settle could have resolved the issues and that the responding party had limited means.

Balancing these considerations, the court awarded a reduced costs amount.