Adriano John Cassolato

Following cross-motions in a family law proceeding concerning child support, disclosure, post-secondary education expenses, and security for support through a lien, the court addressed costs and outstanding disclosure issues.

The applicant mother was successful on all substantive issues, including resisting the respondent father's motion and obtaining remedies relating to support and disclosure.

Applying the governing costs principles emphasizing indemnification of successful litigants, encouragement of settlement, and sanctioning of improper conduct, the court found the respondent father’s conduct contributed to delay and diversion of the litigation.

The court fixed, rather than assessed, costs and ordered the respondent father to pay $16,000 to the applicant mother.

The court also provided directions regarding further disclosure, emphasizing the respondent father’s obligation to disclose business records relevant to determining income from self-employment.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a temporary child support order, seeking a reduction based on an asserted income of $40,000 and claiming significant overpayment.

The applicant mother opposed the change, alleged material non-disclosure, and sought various ancillary relief including access to RESP funds and security for support.

The court found the father had provided selective and inadequate financial disclosure and rejected his claim that the original order was excessive.

While recognizing some temporary financial and medical setbacks following a motor vehicle accident, the court held that the father’s lifestyle evidence and business records undermined his claimed income.

The court varied support only for a limited six‑month period and otherwise maintained the previously ordered temporary support level.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $10,000 for breach of contract after the appellants failed to close a real estate transaction.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding the respondent mitigated its damages, in calculating the damages relative to the Small Claims Court monetary limit, and in awarding costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent's mitigation efforts reasonable, the damage calculation proper, and the costs award within the rules.

The minor plaintiff was allegedly attacked by the insureds' son on school property.

The plaintiff sued the son for intentional torts and the parents for negligent supervision.

The parents' homeowner's insurer denied coverage and refused to defend the action, relying on an exclusion clause for intentional or criminal acts by 'any person or any named insured'.

The parents successfully brought a motion for summary judgment declaring the insurer had a duty to defend them.

The insurer appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the exclusion clause ambiguous as to whether the intentional act of one insured excluded coverage for all insureds, including those sued in negligence.

The ambiguity was resolved in favour of the insureds.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly statutory accident benefits for 18 months before the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought arbitration, claiming continued entitlement to weekly benefits on the basis of a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's condition had improved significantly and that his pain did not substantially impair his ability to perform his essential tasks during the disputed period.

The claim for weekly benefits was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.