Agarwal

The applicant withdrew his family law application against the respondent's family members (the Gandhis) prior to trial.

The Gandhis and the respondent moved for costs of the withdrawn proceeding under Rule 12(3) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant argued that only the trial judge had jurisdiction to award costs.

The court held that a motion judge has jurisdiction to award costs when an application is withdrawn against co-parties.

Finding that the applicant had a bona fide claim but acted unreasonably by persisting with it long after receiving disclosure, the court awarded costs to the Gandhis and the respondent.

The applicants, claiming to be the rightfully elected directors of a temple, applied for an order appointing a monitor over the temple's affairs and freezing its assets.

They alleged that the respondent former directors misappropriated funds and failed to hold lawful elections.

The court found the applicants' allegations of breach of trust were unsubstantiated and did not raise a serious issue to be tried.

The application was dismissed, as there was no basis to impose a monitor under the court's equitable jurisdiction.

The applicant father and respondent mother sought an order for decision-making responsibility for their 6-year-old child.

The parties had resolved parenting time but remained in high conflict over health and education decisions, largely driven by the father's disproportionate anxiety regarding the child's health.

The court ordered that the mother have sole decision-making responsibility for health and education to reduce conflict and ensure stability.

The parties were granted shared decision-making responsibility for culture, language, religion, and significant extracurricular activities, as they demonstrated an ability to cooperate in these areas.

The plaintiff bank sued the defendant for an unpaid credit line, and the defendant counterclaimed.

Ahead of a summary judgment motion, the defendant served a summons to examine the plaintiff's lawyer and sought to cross-examine the plaintiff's affiant on a newly filed affidavit.

The plaintiff moved to quash the summons, and the defendant moved to compel the cross-examination.

The court quashed the summons as an overly broad fishing expedition and an abuse of process, but permitted a brief, 30-minute cross-examination of the affiant limited to the new matters raised in her recent affidavit.