Alnaz Ismail Jiwa

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding she was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by giving little weight to unverified medical conditions when assessing the substantiality of her verified impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness and that the Tribunal correctly applied the law by considering the whole person without improperly relying on unverified impairments.

This case involved a bifurcated, high-conflict six-day trial concerning the custody and access of three children.

The applicant mother and respondent father each claimed custody, with the children having resided with the mother since separation in 2012.

The primary dispute revolved around the re-establishment of the children's relationship with the father, with the mother proposing preconditions for reunification therapy (e.g., father undertaking anger management) and the father advocating for unconditional reunification therapy, aligning with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court ordered reunification therapy for the two younger children, rejecting the mother's preconditions and establishing a detailed framework for the therapy process, including therapist selection, shared payment, and the therapist's authority over access timelines.

The children were to continue residing with the mother, and no immediate access order was made, pending the therapist's recommendations.

The applicant moved to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing its application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought to quash an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding the respondent was an employee, not an independent contractor, and awarding unpaid wages.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test from Chiu and found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention to seek judicial review, it failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, considering the merits of the application and the prejudice to the respondent, the justice of the case did not require granting an extension.

The motion was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion and the granting of the defendants' motion, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court rejected the defendants' request for substantial indemnity costs and found their claimed amount of $26,000 to be excessive.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The court also resolved a dispute over the discovery plan, ordering that cross-examinations could be used as examinations for discovery for trial purposes.

The parties were involved in a commercial joint venture dispute.

The defendants brought a motion to release $50,000 held in trust that stood in place of a previously issued Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a sold property.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to issue new CPLs against two other properties owned by the defendants, alleging joint venture funds were diverted to purchase or improve them.

The court granted the defendants' motion to release the funds and dismissed the plaintiff's motion for new CPLs, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a direct connection between the joint venture funds and the properties, and thus had no triable issue regarding an interest in land.

The plaintiff was granted unopposed leave to amend her statement of claim.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment obtained after she failed to attend the trial.

She explained her absence was due to generalized anxiety disorder, feeling overwhelmed after her lawyer removed himself from the record on the eve of trial, and a pre-trial judge's prediction that an adjournment would be denied or granted on onerous terms.

The court found her explanation reasonable, noting she moved promptly to set aside the judgment and presented an arguable defence based on an oral family agreement and part performance.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.

The moving party, the stepfather of the children involved in a custody dispute, sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to provide his consent for the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to obtain his Children's Aid Society and police records.

The OCL had been appointed to represent the children under section 89(3.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The stepfather argued that as a non-party not seeking custody, he should not be compelled to disclose these records.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the records were relevant to determining the best interests of the children and ensuring a safe home environment.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant mortgagee, seeking a refund of overpayments and punitive damages.

The defendant had previously obtained a default judgment for $46,950.19 but later demanded $82,238.28 to discharge the mortgage when the plaintiffs sold their home.

The court found that the registrar had unlawfully signed the initial default judgment for unliquidated claims.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendant's demand for accelerated interest and excessive fees violated section 8 of the Interest Act and the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act.

The court ordered the defendant to refund $40,223.85 and awarded $30,000 in punitive damages for its high-handed and unconscionable conduct.

The applicant sought an order for unsupervised access to his child for six hours weekly.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the child would be at risk of harm without supervision.

The court found that evidence suggested the applicant had a sexual interest in children and posed a risk of psychotic breakdown.

The court rejected the applicant's expert evidence as lacking independence and objectivity.

Supervised access was continued at two hours weekly.

The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes and ordered monthly support payments.

The husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act.

He argued the trial judge erred in excluding a $100,000 motor vehicle accident settlement from the wife's assets, finding he recklessly depleted $216,000 from a joint account, and in her treatment of date of marriage assets.

He also challenged the enforceability of a Maher agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual and credibility findings were supported by the evidence and she made no errors in law.

The appellants appealed a motions judge's refusal to set aside a default judgment.

The motions judge found that the appellants failed to move as soon as possible and gave no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion.

The court also declined to interfere with the judgment based on an accounting argument over a $5,000 sum and noted it had no jurisdiction over post-judgment arguments regarding amounts owing.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge's reasons.

The court found there was nothing in writing to support the appellants' defence, and their affidavit material did not raise a viable issue concerning the bank's knowledge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,000.

The appellant travel agency appealed a trial judge's finding of negligence and damages award in favour of the respondents.

The trial judge found the agency breached its duty of care by failing to warn the respondent about visa requirements, as the agency sent the invoice containing the warning to the wrong address.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's credibility findings, liability conclusion, and damages assessment, dismissing the appeal with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment issued on a promissory note and the motion judge's refusal to grant a stay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision based on the record before her.

However, based on fresh evidence tendered on appeal, the Court upheld the summary judgment but ordered a stay of the judgment until the respondent provides proof of compliance with its obligations to obtain releases of guarantees under the parties' Shareholder's Agreement and Undertaking and Indemnification Agreement.

The applicant father in a custody and support proceeding moved for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent mother's counterclaim for an interest in property.

The motions judge adjourned the summary judgment motion pending the applicant's delivery of a financial statement and transcripts.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the adjournment to the Divisional Court.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the adjournment and noting a conflicting decision regarding the adjournment of summary judgment motions for unrelated document production.