Our track record of success in litigation is unparalleled.
The payor father had stopped participating in the court case and had stopped spousal and child support. At the start of trial, the judge was satisfied that the payor father should not be allowed to participate, lead evidence, or make submissions during trial. Although the payor father was allowed to observe the trial, it proceeded without him and the judge heard and relied on the recipient mother's evidence alone.
M. v. M.
In this case, the wife (our client) brought the issues of financial disclosure and support to the court after all of the other issues were resolved. The husband argued she could not do this, and that she had to take the case to an arbitrator instead. After a careful review of the law, we were able to obtain an Order allowing the wife to proceed in court.
H. v. N.
Unfortunately, sometimes clients have serious concerns about the wellbeing of their children in the other’s care. In this case, a history of abuse led the mother to request access take place in a supervised access center and be restricted to a limited time each week. Her concerns were found to be warranted and the judge ordered limited access under supervision.
S. v. S.
Our client donated his sperm to a friend and a baby was born. After a falling out, she sued him for child support. We successfully argued that our client was not the child's legal parent, despite being the biological parent, and despite the fact that the child was conceived using sexual intercourse. Novel legislation was interpreted in our client's favor.
M.R.R. v J.M
After the end of a long trial, our client successfully won sole custody and primary residence of her young daughter. We successfully had the father imputed with an income much higher than what he was earning at the time of trial, and he was ordered to pay child support to the mother retroactively to the date of seperation.
B. v. B.
Spousal support awards are discretionary. Sometimes, even when there has been a history of financial dependency, parents and spouses need to be able to move on. In this case, our client had been the primary breadwinner for the duration of the marriage but the judge found that the husband was capable of becoming self-sufficient and both parties would benefit from a clean financial break. The judge did not order periodic support.
M.S. v. A.R.
After a lengthy trial, our client was awarded sole custody, support on an imputed income, and costs. Her former husband appealed, and his appeal was denied. Our client received costs of $15,000.00 from the Court of Appeal as she was entirely successful on the appeal.
B. v. B.
In this very troubled family, the children began to resist contact with their mother due to the father's alienating conduct. Over time, the mother was able to have the children's contact with their father restricted, and to ensure that they weren't dragged into the middle of the ongoing court battle. Because her position was principled and protective, the mother was able to receive her costs for portions of the proceeding.
Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. L.R.
When the father didn't pay his equalization or costs, or any support, and then tried to have his arrears reduced, we asked the court to throw his case out, and were successful. The father appealed, and we were successful in having his appeal dismissed.
G. v. G.
After we succesfully advocated for our client, the mother, to have the majority of parenting time, and the father's claim for shared residency was denied, the court ordered the father to pay to our client $92,640.00 in court costs.
L. v. L.
Sometimes it’s possible to have a win-win outcome by shortening time in court and recovering costs. In this case, our client was “entirely successful” on her motion for summary judgment. The father misled the court by inaccurately representing his income and remained in substantial arrears of child support. The court awarded our client full recovery of her costs and enforced the costs order as if it were a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.
M. v. B.
Sometimes people try to avoid paying support by hiding money, disguising how much their companies and other assets are worth, or by refusing to provide disclosure. In this case, the wealthy father payor did not want to provide his income information, and made a number of complicated legal arguments to try to avoid his child support obligations. We were successful in having the court order him to provide his income information and our client was awarded almost all of her legal fees as a result.
S. v. T.
Piercing the corporate veil is a notoriously difficult task but sometimes it is the only way to establish an accurate picture of income. In this case, a number of corporate entities were found to be the payor’s “alter ego” which the husband was using to frustrate his obligations to our client. After hearing considerable evidence, the judge decided to pierce the corporate veil and awarded the wife over $60,000 in child support arrears, as well as substantial costs and interest on costs.
K. v. D.
In this case, the husband appealed an order that we had obtained on motion striking his pleadings on the basis of his failure to comply with orders for disclosure. The Court of Appeal upheld the order made by the motions judge and dismissed the appeal with costs payable to our client in the amount of $7,500. As a result, the case proceeded to an uncontested trial.
G. v. G.