Alexandre Kaufman

The prospective plaintiff sought an ex parte order to commence a civil action using a pseudonym or initials, and for orders preventing disclosure of his real name and sealing motion materials, based on allegations of sexual abuse by a former teacher.

The Master dismissed the motion orally, finding it should not have been brought ex parte and that the procedure for publication bans under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction (CPPD) had not been followed.

The Master also found the evidence insufficient to displace the strong presumption of open courts, noting that the Dagenais/Mentuck test for publication bans requires a "real, substantial and well-grounded" risk, which was not met by the solicitor's affidavit alone.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to re-bring it on notice with proper procedure and evidence.

Following the rejection of Mr. Mwadi's urgent motion, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The Bureau des Obligations Familiales (BOF) and Ms. Mihalache, the respondents, sought costs.

The court awarded BOF $825 on a partial indemnity basis.

For Ms. Mihalache, a self-represented litigant, the court applied principles from *Fong v. Chan* and *Benarroch v. Fred Tayar & Associates P.C.*, reducing her claimed hours and awarding a symbolic amount of $250 due to insufficient evidence of foregone remunerative activity, while acknowledging the emotional cost.

Mr. Mwadi was granted 90 days to pay the awarded amounts.

This motion addressed outstanding refusals and undertakings in two related actions: a breach of warranty claim by Orbcomm Inc. against Randy Taylor Professional Corporation following an acquisition, and a defamation claim by former SkyWave officers against Orbcomm.

The court ruled on several discovery issues, ordering Orbcomm to provide specific information and answers to questions, but upholding litigation privilege for an expert's instruction letter and denying early identification of trial documents.

The court also set out a process for the defendant to seek leave for extended discovery.

The Applicant brought a motion for an order appointing a social worker to complete a Voice of the Child Report.

The Master declined the order, finding it was outside a Master's jurisdiction under Rule 42 of the Family Law Rules.

The matter was transferred to a judge for determination based on the parties' written materials.

This costs endorsement arose from the non-cooperation of Tim Long Chang, the sole officer of the bankrupt Accountable Solutions Accounting Professional Corporation (ASAPC), with the trustee, Albert Gelman Inc. Mr. Chang failed to provide required financial documents and attend creditor meetings, necessitating a motion to compel his examination under oath pursuant to s. 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Justice Hainey initially ordered compliance and examination, with costs to be determined by the hearing judge.

Master Kaufman, Registrar in Bankruptcy, found Mr. Chang's failure to comply was due to his blaming the trustee for the bankruptcy.

The motion and examination were deemed necessary.

Costs were awarded to the trustee, payable by Mr. Chang, in the amount of $11,000, after reductions for estimated counsel fees and hours related to a separate examination.

The moving party brought an urgent motion to order the Family Responsibility Office to reduce the bi-weekly garnishment of his wages for a costs award from $393.93 to $50 per month.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish an urgent situation or demonstrate an inability to borrow funds to satisfy the debt.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff in a defamation action, relying on Rule 56.01(a) due to the plaintiff's ordinary residence outside Ontario.

The court found the plaintiff to be impecunious, demonstrating his financial inability to post security, and that his claim was not plainly devoid of merit.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside an order granted on an unopposed 14B motion, arguing that the court granted the order prematurely, before the expiry of the response period under the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the original order could not stand due to procedural irregularity.

Alternatively, applying the three-part test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found the respondent moved promptly, had a plausible explanation for default, and an arguable case on the merits regarding unresolved parenting issues and the binding nature of the minutes of settlement.

The original order was set aside, and a case conference was ordered.

The court heard a costs endorsement following an urgent motion on December 8, 2015, where the respondent was largely successful.

The applicant argued against costs due to late submissions, alleged deficiencies in the respondent's Bill of Costs, and claims of the respondent misleading the court and acting in bad faith.

The respondent sought substantial recovery, citing the applicant's unreasonableness and non-participation.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and entitled to costs, despite both parties failing to serve formal Offers to Settle.

The court awarded the respondent $5,232.50 in costs plus HST and disbursements, totaling $6,074.88, to be paid from the applicant's share of matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The applicant husband, a self-represented lawyer, sought to amend his pleadings to include claims for equalization and trust, despite potential limitation period issues and a history of delayed financial disclosure.

The respondent wife incurred additional legal fees to amend her Answer in response to these new claims.

The court, in this costs ruling, awarded the respondent $2,640.27 for costs thrown away related to the original pleadings, finding this amount reasonable.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments regarding the respondent's conduct and his request to suspend payment, emphasizing that costs are determined summarily after each step and that a legally aided client's liability is not shielded by impecuniosity when acting unreasonably.