Antal Joeseph Bakaity

The moving defendant sought to strike or stay the plaintiff's civil action, arguing it duplicated issues in an ongoing family proceeding between the defendants.

The plaintiff, the mother of one of the defendants, claimed she provided a $250,000 mortgage for the defendants' matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the plaintiff was not a party to the family litigation and her claim was not duplicative.

Instead, the court ordered that the civil action and the family proceeding be heard together or one after the other, as they shared common questions of fact and law regarding the alleged mortgage.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a defaulted mortgage and obtain an order for possession.

The defendants conceded the default but objected to various default and administrative fees claimed by the plaintiff.

The court granted judgment and possession but disallowed the disputed fees, finding they were prohibited by s. 8 of the Interest Act as they effectively imposed a higher rate on arrears without evidence of actual administrative costs.

Due to the plaintiff advancing these unwarranted charges, the court exercised its discretion to deny the plaintiff's claim for contractual substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered whether the respondent, Marlene Francis, was unjustly enriched by the applicant, Vern Darchie Douglas, during their lengthy cohabitation.

Douglas claimed financial and other contributions to the property entitled him to compensation or a constructive trust.

The court found that while Douglas did not prove unjust enrichment regarding the down payment or ongoing mortgage payments, he was entitled to $18,000 for renovations and repairs that increased the property's value.

The court declined to find a joint family venture and awarded a monetary remedy rather than a proprietary interest.

The offender, Shane Springer, was sentenced following a trial where he was found to have caused significant head injuries to the complainant with a bag.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment and 24 months probation, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as aggravating factors (unprovoked attack, weapon use, lack of remorse, ongoing harm to victim) and mitigating factors (first offender, refugee claimant status, community contributions, positive pre-sentence report).

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the severity of the assault and lack of remorse, imposing six months imprisonment and two years probation, noting the potential for deportation.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of assault causing bodily harm against the defendant, Shane Springer, arising from an incident on September 20, 2021, involving the complainant, Ricardo Pilgrim.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

The complainant's testimony, detailing significant head injuries caused by the defendant, was accepted as truthful and accurate.

The defendant's testimony, which offered an alternative explanation for the injuries and denied culpability, was rejected as untruthful and unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of plausibility.

The court found no reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt.

The appellant, Jatinder Singh Dhillon, appealed a final order in family litigation, raising four grounds: a resulting trust claim, quantification of net family property, private school costs under s.7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and "netting down" a lump sum retroactive spousal support award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no legal or palpable and overriding factual error.

The court emphasized that judges are not required to make tax adjustments for retroactive spousal support awards unless specifically requested and that such adjustments are discretionary, especially where non-disclosure of income could lead to a windfall.

The accused, N.B., was charged with sexual assault, exposing his genital organs to a person under 16, and sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose on the same complainant, A.W. N.B. pleaded not guilty and testified, denying the allegations.

The Crown argued that A.W.'s testimony was unshaken and corroborated.

The court found N.B. not credible but also identified significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the Crown's evidence, particularly A.W.'s account and the corroborating witnesses.

The court concluded that while "something bad" may have happened to A.W., the evidence was insufficient and unreliable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

N.B. was found not guilty on all counts.

The appellant, Donavan Locke, appealed orders from the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his second and third actions (alleging deceit and conspiracy against his former common-law partner and her lawyers regarding a property transfer) and dismissing his own motions (including a constitutional question and criminal contempt).

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's decision, affirming that summary judgment was appropriate due to the appellant's lack of evidence and damages.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the appellant's motions, noting the constitutional question was "ill conceived" and there was no basis for criminal contempt.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to each respondent.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis after successfully striking the Respondents' pleading due to their bad faith conduct, including deliberate non-disclosure and non-compliance with court orders.

The Respondents argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount.

The court awarded full indemnity costs, finding the Respondents' conduct warranted a punitive award, but reduced the claimed amount due to some excessive hours and the abandonment of a contempt motion.

The costs were awarded jointly and severally against all Respondents due to their concerted efforts to obstruct disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the pleadings of the respondent and two added respondents for persistent and deliberate non-compliance with numerous court orders.

These orders included requirements for financial disclosure, payment of spousal support and costs, and adherence to preservation orders related to the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondents' conduct to be in bad faith, rising to the level of fraudulent misconduct, aimed at frustrating the applicant's financial claims.

Given the egregious nature of the breaches and the futility of lesser remedies, the court granted the motion, striking the respondents' pleadings and allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to set aside a noting in default, the successful responding parties sought their costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding parties, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from the general rule under Rule 57.03 that the successful party on a motion is entitled to costs payable forthwith.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside a noting in default and to strike an affidavit she had previously sworn.

The underlying action arose from an ATV accident where the moving party was the driver and the plaintiff was a passenger.

The moving party had previously sworn an affidavit claiming ownership of the ATV, leading to the dismissal of the action against her common-law spouse.

After the plaintiff's claim was settled by the insurers, they sought subrogation against the moving party, who then claimed she had lied about owning the ATV to protect her spouse's assets.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the noting in default, finding that doing so would cause substantial prejudice to the innocent insurers who had relied on her representations.

The request to strike the affidavit was also dismissed as moot and inappropriate for a preliminary motion.

The parties separated when their child was six months old.

The mother relocated to Guelph with the child, while the father remained in Brampton.

At trial, the parties agreed the mother would have sole decision-making responsibility, leaving the father's parenting schedule and his request for a reduction in child support due to high access costs as the remaining issues.

The court considered the child's learning difficulties, the father's commute, and the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court ordered alternating weekend parenting time for the father from Friday after school to Sunday evening, plus a mid-week community visit in Guelph.

The father's request for a reduction in child support was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of a final child support order pending the outcome of his motion to change.

The father's income from his soccer club was significantly reduced due to government-mandated closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Family Responsibility Office intended to garnish his CERB benefits.

The court granted a six-month stay of the support order, finding that the father's business closure was beyond his control, he had continued to pay support based on his CERB income, and the mother's six-figure income meant the child would not be significantly prejudiced by a temporary stay.

This endorsement determines the quantum and payer of costs following a dismissed application by Sandra Krolewski and Edward Medeiros to set aside the 2015 Will of Eduardo Medeiros.

The respondent, Maria Natalia Moniz, was the successful party in the main application.

The court awarded Moniz partial indemnity costs of $46,349.74, reducing the amount sought due to proportionality and duplication of counsel.

The costs were ordered to be paid by the applicants, not the estate, as their will challenge based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence was found to be unjustified and not supported by their own expert's opinion.

The applicants challenged the validity of their late father's 2015 Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, suspicious circumstances, and undue influence by his common-law spouse, the respondent.

The testator executed the new Will shortly after a terminal cancer diagnosis, leaving his half-interest in the jointly owned home to the respondent, while his children still received his RRSPs and vehicle.

The court declined to convert the application to a trial, finding the documentary record sufficient.

The court held that the applicants failed to rebut the presumption of testamentary capacity, as the circumstances surrounding the Will's execution were not suspicious and there was no evidence of undue influence.

The application was dismissed and the 2015 Will was declared valid.

The Applicant sought divorce, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, an equalization payment, and a declaration of 50% beneficial ownership in the matrimonial home based on resulting or constructive trust.

The Respondent contested spousal support entitlement and the ownership claim, arguing for a different valuation date for equalization and reimbursement for property costs.

The court determined the valuation date, denied the beneficial ownership claim, calculated equalization, and awarded retroactive and ongoing non-compensatory spousal support to the Applicant, while also ordering the return of RRSP funds and reimbursement of occupation rent to the Respondent.

Danny Duarte applied in Newfoundland and Labrador to vary a 2011 Ontario child support order, seeking a reduction based on decreased income.

The Newfoundland court issued a provisional order reducing his obligations.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, as the court of competent jurisdiction where the children reside, heard evidence from Sarah Duarte to determine whether to confirm, vary, or dismiss the provisional order.

The court found Danny Duarte failed to disclose income from a business and imputed a higher income for 2016, and also adjusted his contribution to section 7 expenses.

The provisional order was confirmed with variations, increasing Danny Duarte's child support and section 7 contributions for certain years.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for delay.

The action arose from two separate events in 2009—an alleged slip and fall accident and a motor vehicle accident—and had been ongoing since 2011.

A timetable was imposed in 2015 requiring completion of discoveries, mediation, and trial set-down by specific dates.

The appellant failed to comply with the timetable.

The motion judge dismissed the action for inordinate and inexcusable delay, finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice and that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $25,000 for defective hardwood floor installation.

The trial judge had found the action was not statute-barred because the parties were engaged in ongoing negotiations and remediation efforts.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law.

Under the Limitations Act, 2002, a limitation period is not tolled or extended by ongoing communications or efforts to rectify defective work.

The action was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period and was therefore statute-barred.