Andrea Himel

The respondent wife brought a motion to change a final consent order that had terminated spousal support, seeking retroactive and ongoing support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the husband securing employment, the wife's motor vehicle accident, and both parties turning 65.

However, after imputing income to both parties for intentional underemployment, the court concluded that the husband had no ability to pay ongoing spousal support.

The court also noted the wife had inappropriately enforced a Mahr in Iran in breach of their separation agreement, which satisfied her compensatory support entitlement.

The motion to change was dismissed with no costs.

The Professional Conduct Committee of the CPAO sought judicial review of an internal Appeal Decision that ordered the readmission of a former accountant whose license was revoked following criminal convictions for fraud.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Appeal Panel failed to conduct a proper reasonableness review of the initial Reconsideration Decision.

Instead of deferring to the Reconsideration Panel's assessment of the applicant's remorse and rehabilitation, the Appeal Panel impermissibly reweighed the evidence.

Furthermore, the Appeal Panel failed to consider whether readmission was consistent with maintaining public trust in the profession.

The Appeal Decision was set aside and the Reconsideration Decision denying readmission was restored.

The appellant, an independent health facility operator, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the Minister of Health's order to repay nearly $300,000 in facility fees for limited pelvic ultrasounds.

The Board found the appellant improperly billed for these ultrasounds because they were not requested by a referring physician or radiologist and their medical necessity was not adequately documented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly determined its hearing was de novo, the process was procedurally fair, and the appellant failed to meet the statutory documentation requirements for reimbursement.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding that a wheel loader was an 'automobile' for the purposes of statutory accident benefits.

At the LAT hearing, both parties conceded that the wheel loader was not an automobile in ordinary parlance, focusing their arguments on the third part of the Adams test.

However, the LAT decided the case based on the first part of the test without seeking further submissions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LAT breached procedural fairness by rejecting the parties' concession without giving them an opportunity to make full submissions on the issue.

The matter was remitted to a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for alleged sexual harassment and age discrimination by an assistant manager at a Goodlife gym.

The applicant argued the Tribunal unreasonably interpreted the test for sexual harassment, made unreasonable evidentiary findings, and erred in finding Goodlife met its duty to investigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's credibility assessments, factual findings, and conclusions regarding the duty to investigate were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the interlocutory decision of Akazaki J. dated December 5, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the agreed upon amount of $7,500, all inclusive.

Michael Williams pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, two counts of possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight years, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors, including Mr. Williams' disadvantaged background, harsh pre-sentence custody, and the joint submission of counsel.

The decision reviews the relevant sentencing principles and case law, and details the factual background, evidence, and positions of the parties.

This decision addresses a motion to change child support and related orders for two adult children, DY and CZ.

The court finds that DY, despite being over 18 and not attending school full-time, remains a "child of the marriage" due to significant mental health challenges.

The court orders continued support and sets out a detailed framework for the release of RESP funds and the sharing of post-secondary and section 7 expenses.

The decision also addresses the parties' ongoing disclosure issues, the need for mediation before further litigation, and the cessation of child support for CZ upon completion of her first degree.

This decision addresses the division of property, child support, and spousal support following the breakdown of an 18-year marriage between parties who immigrated from Iran to Canada.

The main issue was the treatment of the Mehr (a marriage contract requiring payment of 800 gold coins), its enforceability, and its impact on equalization of net family property.

The court found the Mehr was not paid, ordered an unequal division of property in the husband's favour due to unconscionability, and dismissed the husband's claim for spousal support.

The court also set out child support obligations and addressed credibility issues with both parties.

Mauricio Aguirre pleaded guilty to uttering a threat to cause death and mischief to property under $5,000.

The court considered the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, and the sentencing principles under the Criminal Code.

After reviewing aggravating and mitigating factors, including Aguirre’s remorse, compliance with release conditions, and rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a conditional discharge with probation and ancillary orders.

The court sentenced Fahmid Iqbal, a youthful first offender, for possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

After a detailed review of the facts, mitigating and aggravating factors, and relevant case law, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community under strict conditions, followed by two years of probation.

The decision discusses the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence in the circumstances.

The court sentenced Jamaal Lloyd Williams following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and breach of a prohibition order.

The sentencing reasons review the factual background, Mr. Williams' criminal record, the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, and the joint submission of counsel.

The court considered the impact of systemic racism, the seriousness of the offences, and the mitigating effect of the guilty plea and pre-sentence custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7.25 years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of seized property.

The court granted the respondent husband's motion to strike out the applicant wife's pleadings due to her repeated breaches of court orders, including failure to attend questioning and failure to provide proof of listing the jointly owned property in China for sale.

The court found the breaches willful and proportionate to the remedy of striking pleadings, and awarded costs to the husband.

The wife was given a final opportunity to restore her application by complying with outstanding orders and paying costs.

The offender, Ivo Miguel Garrido Fernandes, pleaded guilty to assault and uttering threats to cause bodily harm against his former spouse.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with three years of probation, while the defence requested a conditional discharge, highlighting the offender's lack of a criminal record and his status as a permanent resident.

The court found that the offences, while serious due to their domestic context, were on the minor end of the spectrum and that the offender had demonstrated remorse.

Consequently, the court granted a concurrent conditional discharge on both counts with 18 months of probation, imposed a 10-year weapons prohibition, and denied the Crown's request for a DNA order.

The court sentenced Sukhraj Singh, who pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, to two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence in the community, followed by two years of probation.

The decision reviews the relevant sentencing principles, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable case law, ultimately finding that a conditional sentence is appropriate given the offender’s background, addiction, and compliance with strict bail conditions for four years.

The court sentenced Tayshaun Powell for reckless discharge of a firearm, considering the impact of anti-Black racism, his personal background, and the circumstances of the offence.

The court imposed a 3.5-year custodial sentence, finding that while denunciation and deterrence are paramount, exceptional personal circumstances and systemic factors justified a sentence below the usual range for such offences.

The paternal grandparents sought court-ordered contact with their two grandchildren, E. (13.5) and L. (10), and reconciliation counseling.

The parents opposed the extent of contact and the counseling.

The court found a positive pre-existing relationship with E. was imperiled by both parties' actions, but the parents did not act arbitrarily in limiting contact with E. For L., no positive pre-existing relationship existed, but the parents' actions in limiting contact were deemed arbitrary.

The court ordered monthly contact for both children for a minimum of three hours, with additional contact options, and dismissed the request for reconciliation counseling, emphasizing that such orders are made sparingly and parental autonomy is key.

The mother sought an urgent, without-notice restraining order against the step-father/father to protect herself and three children due to ongoing family violence and safety concerns.

The motion, initially under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA), was amended to include relief under the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) and Family Law Act (FLA).

The court found reasonable grounds for fear for safety based on evidence of physical and verbal abuse.

A temporary restraining order was granted on a without-notice basis, with the mother directed to forthwith commence a CLRA application.

The court emphasized the paramount purpose of child protection in granting the order despite CYFSA's notice requirements.

The mother applied for sole decision-making, primary care, child support, and a restraining order following a highly conflicted separation marked by the father's family violence, harassment, and erratic behaviour.

The father, who was self-represented, sought primary care and refused to pay child support unless granted equal parenting time or primary care.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary care, finding the father's history of abuse and inability to co-parent made joint decision-making impossible.

The court ordered supervised parenting time for the father, imputed his income for retroactive and ongoing child support, and issued a permanent restraining order to protect the mother and child.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion seeking specified disclosure related to property sales and enforcement of prior non-dissipation orders against the respondent husband.

The wife alleged the husband was dissipating assets and restructuring corporations to move funds out of the court's reach, including the sale of Trehaven Golf without her consent and potentially below market value.

The court found the husband in breach of existing non-dissipation and disclosure orders, noting a pattern of unacceptable conduct.

The court granted the temporary order in accordance with the wife's motion and awarded her $7,500 in costs, emphasizing that the motion was necessary due to the respondent's non-compliance.