Anteneh Fekade Kassa

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside an uncontested trial order that granted the applicant mother sole decision-making, parenting time, child support, and severed the divorce.

The court applied the five-part test from Mountain View Farms for setting aside a default order under Family Law Rule 25(19).

The court found that the respondent did not act promptly, had no plausible excuse for his default despite being served multiple times, and only raised an arguable case on the merits regarding parenting time and decision-making.

Balancing the factors, the court concluded it was not just to set aside the order.

The motion was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother for failing to comply with a previous order granting him sole decision-making authority for their child's education for the 2023/2024 academic year.

The mother continued to homeschool the child despite the father's decision to enroll her in an in-person school.

The court found the mother in contempt, ruling that her interpretation of the previous order was without merit and that her actions deliberately violated the order's spirit and intent.

The court imposed a penalty and costs, and extended the father's sole decision-making authority for education for an additional academic year.

The applicant pension fund brought an application for an interpleader order regarding a $62,841.54 pre-retirement death benefit.

The deceased plan member's designated beneficiaries (his mother and sister) and his alleged common-law spouse asserted competing claims to the fund.

The alleged spouse opposed the order extinguishing the applicant's liability, arguing she had a claim for emotional distress.

The court granted the interpleader order, finding no valid cause of action against the applicant, and ordered the alleged spouse to pay $15,000 in partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order placing their two children in the extended care of the Children's Aid Society for adoption with no access.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in two respects.

First, the motion judge improperly relied on inadmissible double hearsay evidence to conclude the parents were drug impaired.

Second, the motion judge applied the outdated legal test for access by presuming against access and placing the onus on the parents, failing to apply the new best interests test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The matter was remitted for trial.

Ms. Cassidy, the successful party in a family law trial, sought costs of $124,511.88.

The court awarded her $75,622.72, representing 65% of her counsel's costs, payable within four months.

The court found both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct, with Mr. Cassidy's actions constituting bad faith due to unreasonable interpretation of orders and refusal to provide disclosure, while Ms. Cassidy unreasonably declined settlement discussions.

The court also denied Ms. Cassidy costs for her self-represented period due to insufficient evidence of opportunity cost.

The respondent, Anne Cassidy, brought a motion to change final orders regarding child and spousal support, s. 7 expenses, and income disclosure.

The applicant, Robert Cassidy, sought to dismiss the motion and terminate spousal and child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances, upheld Ms. Cassidy's entitlement to compensatory spousal support despite her remarriage, ordered Mr. Cassidy to contribute to post-secondary expenses for two children, adjusted ongoing child and spousal support, and awarded retroactive arrears for child support, spousal support, and s. 7 expenses.

The court also modified the income disclosure order and passport possession.

The plaintiff and the deceased purchased a property together, with the plaintiff contributing half the down payment but title registered solely in the deceased's name.

Following the deceased's death, his estate claimed the plaintiff was merely a tenant, while the plaintiff claimed 100% beneficial ownership.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found the parties had been in a domestic relationship and applied the presumption of resulting trust.

The court concluded the plaintiff held a 50% beneficial ownership interest in the property and ordered it sold with proceeds divided equally.

Following a trial where the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed and the defendants' counterclaim was partially allowed, the defendants sought costs of $39,364.74.

The defendants had made three reasonable offers to settle, all of which they beat at trial.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $20,000, representing approximately 50% of full recovery, noting that the defendants were the more successful and reasonable party.