Andrew J. Kania

The appellant, Narman Abri, appealed a motion judge's decision to grant a nunc pro tunc order, deeming a statement of defence and counterclaim issued on the date of filing, despite not being formally issued before the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, distinguishing the case from precedents requiring leave to commence an action.

The court found the lack of issuance to be a procedural irregularity under Rule 2.01, not undermining the purposes of limitation periods, as the appellant had notice of the counterclaim.

This decision concerns costs following a family law trial on parenting issues.

The Applicant Mother was found to have achieved substantial success at trial, having obtained the parenting time and sole decision-making orders she sought, while the Respondent Father's claims of alienation and proposals for shared parenting were rejected.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle and conduct, finding that the Mother's offer did not meet the Rule 18(14) threshold for full indemnity costs due to an unfulfilled condition regarding reunification counseling.

Despite both parties contributing to the conflict and the necessity of trial, the Applicant Mother was awarded partial indemnity costs, adjusted downwards due to high hours claimed and other factors.

In a high-conflict family law dispute ongoing since 2017, the respondent father brought a motion for contempt regarding an interim parenting order, and the applicant mother brought a cross-motion to review the order and for interim child support.

The court refused to grant leave for either party to bring further interim motions, noting the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to deal with cases justly and efficiently.

The court adjourned the motions sine die and directed the parties to proceed to trial on the parenting and child support issues.

The defendants, former truck drivers, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a lawsuit by the plaintiff trucking company for defamation, trespass, and other torts.

The lawsuit arose from protests and online comments alleging unpaid wages.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that their expressions, which included calling the plaintiffs "thieves" and disrupting business, were primarily a private collection dispute aimed at circumventing ongoing legal processes (Canada Labour Code complaints), rather than a matter of genuine public interest.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of her 13-year-old son, who was withheld by the applicant father following the Christmas holidays in breach of a 2015 consent order.

The father brought a cross-motion to vary the order, alleging the child was emotionally abused by the mother and her partner.

The court found the father's allegations lacked credibility and particulars, and that he had engaged in inappropriate self-help tactics.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the mother, directed that the father's access be supervised, and adjourned the father's cross-motion pending an assessment.

The Plaintiffs moved to appoint Janina Gal as litigation guardian for Andrzej Gal, who was mentally incapable.

The Defendants opposed, arguing Janina had an adverse interest and was not indifferent to the outcome.

The court found Janina had a conflict of interest, as the litigation's success would result in properties forming part of Andrew's estate, which would then be transferred solely to Janina under Andrew's will, conflicting with Andrew's stated intention to divide properties equally among his daughters.

Furthermore, Janina was not indifferent to the outcome, as she stood to gain financially and had an acrimonious relationship with another daughter involved in the dispute.

The motion to appoint Janina as litigation guardian was dismissed, and the Plaintiffs were ordered to appoint a new, unconflicted litigation guardian or move to appoint the Public Trustee and Guardian.

The applicant moved to enforce an access review provision in a separation agreement, seeking to increase his overnight access to the child.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-motion for dismissal, transfer of the file to Brampton, and a section 30 assessment.

The court granted the applicant's request for increased access, finding that the "review" test, not "material change," applied and that the increase was in the child's best interests.

The court also granted the respondent's request for a section 30 assessment but adjourned the file transfer request.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a family law matter concerning spousal support.

The respondent wife sought full recovery costs of $38,642.47, while the appellant husband sought partial costs of $16,264.29.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent was largely successful on the contested issues on appeal, particularly in resisting the appellant's argument that the application judge erred in awarding spousal support.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The appellant husband appealed a lump sum spousal support award of $143,280 (adjusted for tax) granted to the respondent wife following a 22-year marriage.

The husband challenged the award on two grounds: (1) that compensatory support was inappropriate because the wife's career prospects were not diminished by the marriage, and (2) that the application judge failed to account for the impact of their adult son residing with the husband when calculating the support amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge properly considered both economic disadvantage flowing from the marriage and from its breakdown.

The court upheld the compensatory support award but varied the order to properly adjust the lump sum amount for tax consequences, reducing it to $106,539.52 ($14,840.32 retroactive plus $91,699.20 prospective), and made ancillary variations regarding life insurance designation, financial disclosure requirements, and post-judgment interest.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order disqualifying the respondent’s counsel due to a conflict of interest arising from a prior consultation with a lawyer from the same firm.

During the consultation, the applicant discussed confidential information regarding the contemplated family law dispute and provided a retainer before the conflict was discovered.

The firm attempted to implement a “Chinese wall” and asserted that no confidential information had been shared with the lawyer representing the respondent.

Applying the principles in MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court held that undertakings alone were insufficient to rebut the presumption that confidential information could be shared within a firm.

Considering the duty of loyalty and the public interest in maintaining confidence in the administration of justice, the court concluded the firm must be disqualified from acting for the respondent.