Amrik Ricky Toor

The applicant sought equalization of net family property and spousal support following separation from the respondent's ex-husband, who passed away during the litigation.

The applicant claimed the respondent held a commercial investment property in trust for the deceased spouse and that she had a beneficial interest through unjust enrichment or fraudulent conveyance.

The court found the deceased had no ownership interest in the property, the trust agreement was a sham created by the deceased to mislead the applicant, and the applicant lacked standing to assert a trust claim against a third party for equalization purposes.

The court dismissed the equalization claim but awarded retroactive spousal support.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to strike his family law claim, alleging procedural fairness denial (denial of cross-examination), improper evaluation of disclosure facts, failure to allow payment of outstanding costs from mutually held funds, and an erroneous equitable remedy granted to a respondent with "unclean hands." The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in any of the appellant's grounds.

The court emphasized the appellant's long-standing failure to provide full financial disclosure, which was necessary for spousal support and equalization issues, and upheld the motion judge's assessment of the appellant's conduct as "outrageous."

This costs endorsement followed motions for productions and undertakings where both parties were partially successful and partially unsuccessful.

The court declined to award costs, finding that neither side was truly successful and both had been unreasonable in bringing the motions without prior attempts to resolve production issues.

The court emphasized that such conduct should not be rewarded.

The court determined whether three children are Indian or native persons under the Child and Family Services Act.

The children's aid society argued the children were neither Indian nor native, while the mother sought a declaration that they were Indian with the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte as their band.

The court found that the children are entitled to be registered as Indians under the Indian Act through their maternal lineage, tracing entitlement through their great-great-grandfather (R.M.), great-grandmother (E.B.), grandfather (R.W.), and mother (M.M.).

The court identified the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte – Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory as the children's band.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where Rajeev Singh Chandel was successful in obtaining an order for payment out of funds held in trust.

Alka Singh failed to comply with court directions regarding the submission of costs materials, including page limits and deadlines, and her submissions were significantly overdue and over-length.

The court found Mr. Chandel was entitled to costs under rule 24(1) and rejected Ms. Singh's arguments of misconduct, indigence, or that Mr. Chandel's success was a "technicality." The court awarded Mr. Chandel partial indemnity costs, recognizing the additional work necessitated by Ms. Singh's non-compliance with procedural directions, specifically her excessive motion record.