Allen C. Gerstl

The appellant sought to review a single judge's order declining an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The underlying appeal concerned a refusal to extend time to appeal an Ontario Court of Justice order dismissing the appellant's application for adult child support under the Family Law Act, based on his failure to pay a 1995 New Brunswick divorce judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motion, finding no error in the motion judge's decision regarding the appellant's delay, lack of merit in the appeal, and prejudice to the respondents.

The court affirmed that the motion judge properly considered the relevant factors for extending time to perfect an appeal.

The appellant appealed a consent order incorporating terms of a separation agreement, alleging the respondent misrepresented his income and failed to provide full financial disclosure, particularly after purchasing a new house.

The respondent had moved under Rule 14 of the Family Law Rules to grant the consent order, providing additional disclosure.

The motion judge granted the consent order and did not order further disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Rule 13 (requiring updated financial statements) was inapplicable given that full disclosure was made at the time of settlement and the consent order had been implemented.

The court also found the use of a Rule 14B motion appropriate, despite opposition, as the matter was deemed "seemingly uncomplicated" and the motion judge had reviewed the evidence.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitration award concerning the division of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property.

The arbitrator had credited the respondents with $30,730 for construction costs incurred prior to the execution of Minutes of Settlement.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator made an extricable error of law by ignoring the plain wording of the Minutes of Settlement, which reset the parties' rights as of the date of execution.

The appeal was allowed, and the arbitration award was varied to remove the $30,730 credit.

The plaintiff and certain defendants each brought urgent motions during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the court was only hearing urgent matters.

The defendants sought an order to pay out funds held in court, while the plaintiff sought to prohibit the payout and further motions.

The court found that neither party provided cogent, particular, and specific evidence to demonstrate that the relief requested was urgent, as defined by the Chief Justice's notices.

Consequently, both motions were dismissed for lack of urgency, and no hearing was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his family law proceedings under rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The motion judge had given the appellant an opportunity to make a partial payment of $5,000 to avoid dismissal.

The appellant failed to make this payment.

The motion judge considered the appellant's failure to comply with this order, his history of non-compliance with court orders dating back to 2006, and multiple costs orders against him.

Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting discretionary relief, the motion judge dismissed the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal.

Following a successful application by a condominium corporation to enforce its declaration against an offending unit owner and its tenants, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs of $24,771.93, noting that section 134(5) of the Condominium Act and the condominium's declaration contemplate full recovery of enforcement costs to protect innocent unit owners.

A supporting respondent, who gathered evidence of the breach to protect his exclusive use rights, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 against the offending respondents.

The respondent Estate Trustee moved to dismiss the applicant's proceedings due to persistent non-compliance with court orders, including disclosure and costs, and for want of prosecution over an eight-year period.

The applicant had failed to pay multiple costs awards and provide financial disclosure.

The court applied Family Law Rule 1(8) and found the applicant's non-compliance deliberate and an affront to the administration of justice.

The court also found irreparable prejudice to the Estate due to the respondent's death and the applicant's inordinate delay.

The application was dismissed for both non-compliance and want of prosecution.

The plaintiff, Robert Weidenfeld, brought a motion seeking permission to participate by teleconference and an order confirming impecuniosity.

The defendants, Robert Andrew Leck and Stiver Vale (law Firm), brought a cross-motion for security for costs against the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff, residing outside Ontario with no assets in the province, failed to provide sufficient evidence of impecuniosity.

The court also determined that the plaintiff's claim against the moving defendants, alleging negligence and breach of duty of care by real estate lawyers for transferring property without investigating outstanding family law proceedings, did not appear obviously meritorious.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for security for costs was granted in the amount of $20,000, payable in installments, and the plaintiff's motion was dismissed.

The defendants moved to set aside a registrar’s default judgment and the noting in default.

The motion focused on whether the registrar improperly granted judgment for claims that were not liquidated demands under Rule 19.04(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that claims for loss of chattels, demolition costs, and future rent damages required evidence outside the contract and therefore were not liquidated demands.

Because the registrar may only grant default judgment for liquidated claims, the judgment was irregular and a nullity.

The court set aside both the default judgment and the noting in default without imposing terms, except requiring the defendants to deliver a statement of defence within 30 days.