About JM Law

We Listen.

We know your situation is wholly unique. We take the time to listen carefully and ask the right questions to clarify your needs and concerns. These factors are critical to advising you on your options, obligations, and rights from the earliest stage to your case completion.

Guidance

We make recommendations that we believe will assist you. You do you not have to follow our recommendations, but our recommendations are based on what we feel is best for you and will help reach a speedy resolution, or put you in the best possible light if the matter does go to court,

Communication

Our firm prides itself on responding promptly to clients - when possible on the same business day. We will regularly update you on the status of your case. Our communication is concise and direct, and you can expect to-the-point emails that tell you precisely what you need to know.

Sensible Fees

Our fees reflect the scope and nature of work and are discussed at the outset of our working relationship. Should the scope change and costs be subject to alteration, you will be notified immediately and asked for approval to proceed.

Learn More

Book a Consultation

Complete the form below to book your consultation with our expert team, or call us directly at (416) 929-6109.

Meet The Team

We invite you to learn more about us. While our biographies include legal expertise and experience, you will also get a sense of us as people — and be provided with contact details should you wish to be in touch.

Examples of Client Work

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 the issues we have litigated.

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 (our client) 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.

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.

Cabeceira v Boerner:

Mother B was successful in her contempt motion, a rare instance in family law. Mother A unilaterally decided to homeschool the children and take them on vacation as well as cutting off all contact with Mother B regarding the children’s education.

Quinn v Quinn:

In this case, the Husband sought to reduce the amount of child support payable and to terminate spousal support. The Wife sought more support. The parties had signed a separation agreement several years after which, the Husband lost his job with cause. Notwithstanding, the Judge ordered support to be based on his actual income, the Wife’s motion was dismissed, and spousal support was fixed.

Sprigings v Wiederick:

The Husband and Wife had resolved all of their issues with the exception of the duration of spousal support. The Husband’s position was that spousal support should have a fixed duration and terminate 14 years from the date of separation. The Judge found that the Wife had a strong entitlement to support and declined to fix an end date to support.

Our Office

45 St. Clair Ave W, #200, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1K9

Please note Jacqueline offers virtual consultations by phone or video.
The office is open by appointment only and COVID protocols are observed.

Call Us

(416) 929-6109

Fax Us

(416) 929-2205

Working Hours

Mon – Fri: 8:30am - 4:30pm

Book an Appointment

Family law attorney in Toronto, Ontario

45 St. Clair Ave W, #200, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1K9
(416) 929-6109

Navigation

Hours

Copyright © 2025 JM Law

Site powered by MesopTik