Rick Toor Law

Rick Toor Law Divorce & Family Lawyers A. Rick Toor is a Senior Associate with Aujla Law Group at their Mississauga office. His practice focuses on family law.

Rick articled in a boutique downtown Toronto family law practice and was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 2014. Rick received his J.D. from the University of Calgary and holds a B.A. (Philosophy) from Simon Fraser University.

08/12/2022

"104. Family litigation is far too corrosive of once-loving relationships and far too soul destroying for emotionally scarred litigants to be exacerbated by an unnecessary war of invective. Yet far too often that is just what occurs. Litigants feel that they can leave no pejorative stone of personal attack untilled when it comes to their once loved one. Many lawyers, feeling dutybound to fearlessly advocate for their clients, end up abetting them in raising their discord to Chernobyl levels of conflict.

105. Often those parties and their lawyers forget that once the war is over, the financially and emotionally drained family still has to pick up the pieces. And the children whose best interests are ostensibly the central concern of their parents’ struggle, can leave their field of battle scarred for life.

106. The role of lawyers in family law cases is a complicated one. That role involves a balancing act of duties towards the client, the administration of justice and even the child before the court. [5]

107. Beyond the balance of those duties, many capable family law lawyers realize that if the cost of victory is too great, everyone loses. Those lawyers realize that their role as advocate should often be as rational counsel not flame-throwing propagandist. Where the client wants to raise the emotional stakes with invective and personal attack, that lawyer must often counsel restraint. While many lawyers who appear before this court recognize the truth of Mr. Nizer’s aphorism that began these reasons, all too many, unfortunately, fail to do so."

Justice Kurz, Alsawwah v. Afifi, 2020 ONSC 2883

04/06/2022

"[35] Throughout the trial, there was no indication that the Mother misunderstood the law or unintentionally pleaded the tort of family violence. Indeed, in her written closings she was careful to maintain her claim based on family violence, pointing to the incidents of physical assault, mental abuse, threats, and financial abuse as a pattern of coercion and control. I cannot dismiss the Mother’s novel claim simply because she was self-represented; at the same time, she must be held to the same standard as a party represented at trial.

[36] In his written closings, the Father asks me to dismiss the tort claim. He says that allowing the Mother’s tort claim to proceed in a family law case raises concerns about the proceedings being “weaponized” and negatively affecting the parties’ ability to co-parent. If I am willing to entertain the tort claim, the Father resists framing the tort as broadly as “family violence.” He says that the Mother must prove the three alleged incidents of battery as outlined in her Amended Answer on a balance of probabilities. He says that it would be speculative to make findings about other incidents of violence. In relation to the alleged emotional abuse, the Father says that the Mother must prove the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering and that causation must be interpreted strictly. He says that the family violence is irrelevant to spousal support.

[112] The Mother is entitled to damages of $150,000 in relation to the family violence she experienced during the marriage."

Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303, Mandhane J.

03/07/2022

"[7] Because when society demonizes and punishes anyone who disagrees – or even dares to ask really important questions – the resulting polarization, disrespect, and simmering anger can have devastating consequences for the mothers, fathers and children I deal with on a daily basis.

[8] It’s becoming harder for family court judges to turn enemies into friends -- when governments are so recklessly turning friends into enemies.

[9] The motion before me is a typical – and frightening – example of how far we are drifting from cherished values."

Justice A. Pazaratz, J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198

02/24/2022

"[122] The Applicant’s evidence is problematic. Her evidence was inconsistent with the evidence she provided in her trial with Mr. Pipitone and inconsistent with the information she provided for the annulment. Her story has changed, not just a handful of details, but the entire narrative. In her 12 year litigation with Mr. Pipitone she was very consistent in her allegations, pointing the finger of blame at Mr. Pipitone and not the Respondent. The Applicant now describes the Respondent as abusive and waters down the allegations she made against her second husband, Mr. Pipitone, now that the narrative does not suit."

Pipitone v. D’Amelio, 2018 ONSC 2970

02/03/2022

"[10] This litigation is about a family disagreement over a modest estate. Bitter emotions and mistrust tend to bring forward a litany of hurts and grievances that have festered over time and may well be the underlying engine of the litigation but not relevant to the particular issue in dispute. The court must take some responsibility for declining to become simply the next site for a continuing quarrel, preserving the resources of the Administration of Justice for determination of matters upon which decisions of law can have some effect."

Cornacchia v. Cornacchia, 2006 39313 (ON SC)

01/31/2022

"[46] contractual autonomy, however, depends on the integrity of the bargaining process. Decisions about what constitutes an acceptable bargain can only authoritatively be made if both parties come to the negotiating table with the information needed to consider what concessions to accept or offer."

Rick v. Brandsema, 2009 SCC 10 (CanLII), [2009] 1 SCR 295

01/24/2022

"[81] Parties in family law matters are often struggling with bitterness, anger, and other negative emotions in the aftermath of the breakdown of their relationship. Unfortunately, the adversarial court process can inflame the antagonism between them, even though the Family Law Rules are designed to encourage settlement. High conflict cases are not uncommon in this court, especially when there are children involved. While it is undesirable, it is also understandable, in the family law context, that a party might become entrenched in their positions, or might adopt a confrontational and accusatorial approach toward the opposing party. Court resources should not, however, be deployed to try to punish an ex-spouse for perceived marital transgressions, or to demonize them for the sake of personal vindication. Ms. Chakraborty did both of these things in this case.

[...]

[97] I therefore make the following orders:

1. Ms. Chakraborty is required to pay $173,601.90[2] in costs, all inclusive. This payment shall be made forthwith from the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home."

Bandyopadhyay v. Chakraborty, 2021 ONSC 7706

02/10/2021

"Undoubtedly, there are many tasks that a child, when asked, may find unpleasant to perform. But ask we must and perform they must. A child who refuses to go on an access visit should be treated by the custodial parent the same as a child who refuses to go to school or otherwise misbehaves. The job of a parent is to parent."

Geremia v. Harb, [2007] O.J. No. 305 (S.C.J.)

02/08/2021

Once the court has determined that access is in the child’s best interests a parent cannot leave the decision to comply with the access order up to the child. As stated by the motion judge, Ontario courts have held consistently that a parent “has some positive obligation to ensure a child who allegedly resists contact with the access parent complies with the access order”

Quaresma v. Bathurst, (2008), O.J. NO. 4734 (Ont. S.C.J.)

11/20/2020

"28. Although a child’s wishes, particularly the wishes of a child of S.’s age, should certainly be considered by a court prior to making an access order, once the court has determined that access is in the child’s best interests a parent cannot leave the decision to comply with the access order up to the child. As stated by the motion judge, Ontario courts have held consistently that a parent “has some positive obligation to ensure a child who allegedly resists contact with the access parent complies with the access order”

29. No doubt, it may be difficult to comply with an access order, especially as children get older. Parents are not required to do the impossible in order to avoid a contempt finding. They are, however, required to do all that they reasonably can."

Godard v. Godard, 2015 ONCA 568

11/09/2020

"66. With the greatest respect, I believe that the father’s response to the mother’s counteroffer, rejecting it while threatening significant costs and impugning her motives, was out of proportion to the terms of that counter-offer. The parties were very close to resolving the issues. I have already spoken of the steps that the parties could have immediately taken to bridge any remaining divide. They ultimately did so, other than in regard to costs.

67. All of this is to say that the claim for costs of over $11,000.00 in these circumstances is disproportionate to the course of negotiations and the position taken by the mother following receipt of the father’s offer. To award those costs would penalize a party who, in this step of the case, bargained reasonably and in good faith.

68. For all of the reasons set out above, I find that it is fair and reasonable in these circumstances for each party to bear their own costs of the case conference of September 5, 2017 and the subsequent negotiations that led to their consent order."

Kurz J. (Frape v. Mastrokalos, 2017 ONCJ 915)

11/04/2020

"317. In addition, I find that Mr. Khan is a very strong-headed person and that he is a domineering figure with regard to his family. Given his effort to persuade Dr. Aly Hindy to perjure himself, I do not put it past him to have pressured Azim to testify in a manner that would favour him as much as possible.

318. With regard to Ms. Talaoui, there is no evidence of her being dishonest. However, I consider that her relationship with Mr. Khan is “acrimonious and bitter”. Also, it is in her interest to portray their relationship as one of a couple that cohabited together as spouses.

319. As Justice Wilson stated, I have to look beyond “the viva voce evidence of the parties in the midst of acrimonious and bitter proceedings."

Bovard J (Khan v. Talaoui, 2017 ONCJ 191)

Address

#402/250 Dundas Street West
Mississauga, ON
L5B1J2

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 6pm
Tuesday 9am - 6pm
Wednesday 9am - 6pm
Thursday 9am - 6pm
Friday 9am - 6pm

Telephone

+19052734441

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Rick Toor Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Rick Toor Law:

Shortcuts

Share

Category