Ajit Saroha

The Respondent Mother brought a motion seeking various orders, including retroactive child support, amendment of parenting orders, and costs.

The parenting issues were resolved, and a contempt motion was not pursued.

The primary issue for the court was the determination of retroactive child support.

The court found that retroactive child support was warranted from March 1, 2018, three years prior to the Mother's Answer, based on the Father's failure to provide timely disclosure and his higher actual income.

The Mother was awarded $31,930 in retroactive child support and $6,000 in costs.

A discipline panel found a dentist guilty of professional misconduct for describing himself on his website as a specialist in orthodontics and as a specialist orthodontist while registered only as a general dentist.

The panel held that the member was responsible for misleading advertising published on his website even if the web provider made the error, and found the conduct unprofessional and unethical, particularly in light of a prior undertaking arising from similar conduct.

The panel imposed a reprimand, a six-week suspension, ethics remediation, and advance approval conditions for promotional materials.

The panel also ordered costs of $15,000 payable to the College.

This endorsement arises from a case management conference convened to coordinate an action and four related applications stemming from the breakup of a law firm.

The court made several procedural orders, including vacating and rescheduling hearing dates for various motions, converting a motion to written submissions, and setting timelines for affidavits and submissions.

The endorsement also addresses the interpretation of a previous order regarding cross-examinations and outlines the process for scheduling further motions, including one to compel attendance at cross-examinations and another to remove counsel of record.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside and/or change a final default order made by Justice Zisman on December 5, 2012, which granted custody to the applicant mother, imputed the respondent's income at $60,000 per year, and ordered child and spousal support.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, alleging bad faith conduct by the respondent.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably throughout the proceedings by providing inconsistent income information in multiple sworn affidavits and failing to comply with disclosure orders and prior costs awards.

However, the court found the evidence fell short of establishing bad faith.

Costs were awarded to the applicant at $3,500.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements and taxes, payable within 30 days or at $150.00 per month commencing June 1, 2014, taking into account the respondent's current financial circumstances and receipt of social assistance.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a final order granting custody to the mother and imposing child and spousal support obligations.

The father claimed he was not properly served and sought to have the matter decided on its merits.

The court found serious credibility issues with the father's evidence regarding service but agreed to consider the motion on its merits in the interests of justice.

The court examined the father's income for support purposes and found that despite the father's claims of earning only $20,000 annually, the evidence demonstrated income of at least $56,000.

The motion to set aside was dismissed, but the matter was set for a motion to change hearing to address the father's alleged change in circumstances and his claim for access.