Notable Cases
Cases.
Financial Decisions
Child Support - Termination:
Taimish v. Al Kadhimi, 2023 ONCA 661
Represented the father who was paying child support ordered by a Michigan Court in 2011. The mother wanted to increase child support based on significantly higher child support payable under Ontario Child Support Guidelines. The Superior Court agreed Ontario did not have jurisdiction, and so did the Court of Appeal. The mother’s final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed. Costs ordered in favour of the father at every step.
Read Full DecisionChild Support and Spousal Support - Securing it:
Dalgleish v. Dalgleish, 2003 CanLII 1944 (ONSC)
Represented the mother who requested the Court to impute the father with an income much higher than he was earning. One child, in high school. The Court agreed that the father was intentionally under-employed. The Court also agreed to secure the father’s increased child support against a stock portfolio that he owned. Costs ordered in favour of the mother.
Read Full DecisionSpousal Support - Continuation:
Bossin v. Bossin, 2003 CanLII 27166 (ON CA)
Represented the wife. Children were adults. The husband requested the Court to terminate his spousal support because he had come into some financial misfortune. The Superior Court agreed that any such misfortune was the result of investment choices made by the husband. The wife should not be the victim of the husband’s decisions. The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the husband’s appeal with costs. Costs ordered in favour of the mother at both stages.
Read Full DecisionSpousal Support - Termination:
Politis v. Politis, 2021 ONCA 541
Represented the husband. Children were adults. The wife had re-partnered in a major way and the husband had paid ample support. The husband’s support needed to end. The Superior Court determined the husband’s support should end. The wife appealed. The Court of appeal agreed with the husband and the lower court and the wife’s appeal was dismissed with costs. This was a most important decision because the issue of terminating spousal support is one of the most common issues in family law.
Read Full DecisionSuccessful trust claim on rental property:
Nussbaum v. Nussbaum, 2004 CanLII 23086 (ON SC)
Represented the father. Three young children in primary school. A motion. The father had invested in a rental property but had decided it was prudent to register that property in the name of the wife. It was generating significant income and had gone up in value, so a lot turned on which party was the rightful owner of the rental property. The Superior Court agreed that the father was the rightful owner. Costs ordered in favour of the father. The judge who ruled on this case, Justice Karakatsanis now sits on the Supreme Court of Canada.
Read Full DecisionSuccessful defence to trust claim on rental property:
Colivas v. Colvias, 2017 ONSC 4730
Represented the husband. Two children in primary school. Previous rulings had found the husband to not necessarily be reliable, finding that he effectively controlled the family trust. The trial judge decided that unless the husband could corroborate his testimony by independent evidence, where the husband and the wife disagreed on evidence, the trial judge would accept the wife’s version. This was not unanticipated, however, and is a good illustration of putting into play a “Plan B”. On virtually every live issue, there was corroboration and therefore the husband was the successful party at trial.
Read Full DecisionNon-dissipation Order:
Jeffrey v. McNab, 2018 ONSC 2635
Represented the common law wife. No children. A motion, rather than a trial, where the common law husband kept all the assets following separation, through a labyrinth of corporations, as well as all the proceeds of sale from one of his businesses. The motions judge ordered disclosure, a non-depletion order, spousal support and (eventually) made an order that the husband pay for the wife’s business valuator to track the money. Costs ordered in favour of the wife.
Read Full DecisionChild-related Decisions
Mental Health under Control - Unsupervised parenting time:
G. v. S., 2024 ONSC 2368
Represented the father. Two young children in early primary school. Father had overcome tremendous adversity as mother had obtained an order for supervised parenting immediately following separation. Mental health issues at play, but father was adhering to medical advice of his treating physician and showed himself to be a dedicated and loving father. There had been a set back immediately prior to trial, so at the time of trial, there existed a new order reinstating supervised parenting time. Mother wanted the trial judge to order permanent supervision, with father exercising only a sliver of parenting time. The trial judge recognized that the father’s bond with the children was just as strong as the mother’s. Father successful at trial. Supervised parenting time terminated, and substantial unsupervised parenting time ordered at trial. Father also awarded decision-making over sports as he requested. Father received significant Order for trial costs.
Read Full DecisionChoice of School:
Hamid v. Hamid, 2016 ONSC 5013
Represented the father. One child in kindergarten. The issue on this motion was which parent could decide the child’s school. This case called upon the court to review all the relevant child-focused issues involved in these types of decisions. Choice of school is an issue that comes up frequently in family law and so there were a variety of factors that the courts considered in weighing their decision. The factors were all addressed in this decision. Father successful. Received an Order for costs.
Read Full DecisionRelocation of child to BC:
Jarrett v. Jarrett, 1994 CanLII 18223 (ON SC)
Represented the mother. Two young children. It was a very sad case because it involved the mother and the children wishing to relocate to BC from Ontario. Ultimately, the trial judge agreed with the relocation request because it was in the children’s best interest. A very emotional case. Mother received an Order for costs.
Read Full DecisionExclusive Possession of Matrimonial Home:
Hummel v. Hummel, 2018 ONSC 7526
Represented the husband. Two children, primary school age. Shared parenting time. The wife wanted her and the children to remain in a coach house that was on the same property as the actual matrimonial home. The wife’s proposal served no practical purpose and was not viable long-term. The husband brought a motion for the wife to vacate the coach house. The motion’s judge agreed with the husband who received a significant Order for costs.
Read Full DecisionLandmark Decision outside of Family Law
Changing the Law:
Myshrall v. City of Toronto, 2001 CanLII 24165 (ON CA)
Not a family law case. Acted for injured plaintiff against the City of Toronto. The plaintiff had slipped and fallen on ice. As such, she was required to give “written notice” to the City of Toronto concerning her accident. The notice given was a little vague and the City brought a motion for summary judgment arguing it was too vague. The motions judge agreed with the City. The plaintiff appealed and the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the motion’s judge, also ordering the City to pay the plaintiff’s costs. The Court of Appeal said the motions judge improperly interpreted case law. The City of Toronto appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which dismissed the appeal.
Read Full Decision