Elise Visco

Elise Visco has practiced exclusively in the area of family law since her call to the Bar in 2017. She joined Jacqueline M. Mills’ practice in 2019.

Elise attended Osgoode Hall Law School where she completed the Osgoode Mediation Intensive specializing in family law. During her second and third year of law school, Elise assisted low-income clients with their family law matters through the Pro Bono Students Canada Family Law Project. She spent the summer after her first year in Freetown, Sierra Leone working with the Defence for Children International.

Prior to joining Ms. Mills’ practice, Elise was an associate in the family law group at a mid-sized Toronto law firm. She received a Bachelor of Science with a minor in Italian from the University of Guelph.

Elise is an avid reader of both fiction and non-fiction and participates in a monthly book club. In her spare time, she enjoys cooking, cycling, and traveling to destinations across the globe.

Education

Contact

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

36 Alvin Avenue Toronto Ontario M4T 2X8

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

36 Alvin Avenue
Toronto Ontario M4T 2X8
(416) 929-6109

Navigation

Hours

Monday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

Tuesday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

Wednesday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

Thursday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

Saturday Closed

Sunday Closed

Copyright © 2022 JM Law

Site powered by WiseMedia