Abba Emmanuel Chima

An appeal from a Superior Court order concerning spousal support, child support, and a fraudulent conveyance application.

The appeal raised three issues: whether the motion judge erred in varying spousal support, varying child support, and dismissing the fraudulent conveyance application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, dismissed the appeal regarding spousal support, and dismissed the fraudulent conveyance appeal.

The court allocated costs among the three issues and offset costs between the parties.

Elizabeth Dobis, as executrix and sole beneficiary of her late husband's estate, sought possession and control of a rental property and an accounting from her son, Mark Dobis, who had been managing the property and diverting rents.

Mark Dobis opposed, claiming a life interest based on an invalid "Devise" and a moral obligation.

The court granted Elizabeth Dobis possession and control, ordered Mark Dobis to account for and remit diverted funds, and issued permanent injunctive relief against his interference, finding he had no legal or equitable claim to the property.

Appeal from a motion judge's order varying child and spousal support orders from a 1999 judgment.

The respondent sought to vary support based on changed circumstances, including health issues and reduced income.

The motion judge terminated spousal support as of December 31, 2002, based on the appellant's material change in circumstances (employment and remarriage), and reduced child support from 2004 onwards due to the respondent's declining income.

The appellant appealed the variation of support orders and the dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance application.

The respondent cross-appealed the refusal to award costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, dismissed the appeals regarding spousal support and fraudulent conveyances, and dismissed the cross-appeal on costs.

Mark Dobis brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain Elizabeth Dobis, personally and as Estate Trustee, from dealing with a property at 88 Overton Crescent, and for an order granting leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the property.

Mark Dobis claimed a life interest in the property and sought dependant's support from his late father's estate.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctions and the prerequisites for a CPL.

The court found that Mark Dobis did not raise a serious question to be tried regarding his dependant status or a reasonable claim to an interest in the property, nor would he suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured Elizabeth Dobis.

Both the motion for injunction and the CPL were dismissed.

The appellants successfully appealed orders from the Superior Court of Justice that had reinstated a default judgment and permitted the sale of certain property.

The appeal was allowed because the respondent failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts concerning the appellants' alleged default and participation in the action when attending before the court without notice to the appellants.

The appellants were self-represented throughout most of the proceedings and only retained counsel a few months before the appeal was argued.

The court awarded costs to the appellants on a partial indemnity basis, finding their claim for substantial or full indemnity costs to have no basis and their partial indemnity claim to be excessive and disproportionate.

The appellants appealed orders of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing their motion to set aside a reinstated default judgment and authorizing the sale of their property to satisfy the judgment.

The original action was commenced in 2001 and resulted in a default judgment of approximately $86,000.

The judgment was subsequently set aside, then reinstated by Brown J. in 2008 on an ex parte basis.

The appellants moved to set aside the reinstatement, but the motion judge dismissed their motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts when appearing before Brown J. without notice to the appellants, which was a sufficient basis to set aside the judgment.

A costs decision following a summary hearing on child support and arrears.

The applicant sought costs based on late disclosure by the respondent and the respondent's failure to provide affidavit evidence.

The respondent argued there was divided success.

The court found no late disclosure that increased costs and determined that success was divided: the applicant achieved a higher ongoing child support order than the respondent proposed, but the arrears calculation was significantly lower than claimed.

The court ordered no costs under Rule 24(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The Defendants moved to set aside a default judgment from 2001, reinstated in 2008, while the Plaintiff applied to enforce it.

The court reviewed the history of the litigation, noting the Defendants' past fraudulent conduct, including falsifying travel documents and using a convicted fraudster as a process server.

Applying the five-element test for setting aside a judgment, the court found the Defendants failed to demonstrate a plausible excuse for their default or an arguable defence, as their Statement of Defence contained only bald denials.

The Defendants' motion was dismissed, and the Plaintiff's application to enforce the judgment, including the sale of property, was granted.

Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $16,700 for the current motions, plus $11,000 in outstanding costs from previous motions, with a prohibition on further steps without payment.

Following a family law motion concerning support and s. 7 expenses, the court addressed costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party had partial success on the underlying motion but failed to obtain the full relief sought, and the record disclosed disclosure deficiencies and inconsistent financial materials filed by that party.

The opposing party’s cross‑motion to strike pleadings lacked merit, though a disclosure request was granted.

Considering the conduct of the parties, settlement offers, proportionality, and the modest complexity of the motion, the court reduced the costs sought and ordered the opposing party to pay a reduced amount.

The court declined to order the costs to be enforceable as child support.