You may wish to review some selections of representative client work. These examples, which are matters of public record and therefore can be disclosed, demonstrate some of our winning high-level cases that required expert knowledge in a number of key areas of family law.
Marinangeli v. Marinangeli: Variation of spousal support based on a substantial increase in the husband’s income that required a detailed knowledge of various different types of compensation received by a bank executive. The wife was successful at trial and in the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Davis v. Tangredi: This matter required the appraisal of several pieces of commercial real estate and business valuations of the husband’s corporate interests. The matter settled before trial, however there were numerous motions before trial to protect the wife’s potential entitlement and to assist with funding the litigation.
Klein v. Zagdanski: A very complicated case involving a complex corporate structure and many pieces of commercial real estate.
Real Estate and Spousal Support
DeAcetis v. DeAcetis: One of the issues at trial was the effect of disposition costs and the tax consequences of a sale of real property on the wife’s property entitlement. Another important issue was obtaining an order for lump sum spousal support as the husband was unlikely to comply with any other court order.
Trick v. Trick: Involved a question of enforcement of very substantial arrears of child and spousal support with a husband who resided in Texas. The wife sought to seize the husband’s pension on account of the arrears. The application was heard in the Superior Court of Justice and was successful, but the decision was set aside by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Southey v. Foley: This case involved the interpretation and possible variation of a separation agreement in which the husband had agreed to pay a fixed amount of child support and then tried to reduce that amount. The husband’s application was dismissed and the matter then became an enforcement proceeding as the husband resided in California.
Andrade v. Kennelly: This was a lengthy proceeding where a husband was unable to exercise normal and reasonable access to his children as a result of parental alienation. A child psychiatrist was involved as an expert to provide independent evidence of the role of each parent. After the trial, the children were ordered to live primarily with the husband. The appeal by the wife to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed.
Stupka v. Stupka: In this case, the wife sought to set aside a marriage contract that was signed mere days prior to the wedding in circumstances where she did not understand her rights or obligations. The wife was successful in setting aside the agreement.