Anthony Di Battista

The court found the motion judge erred by treating oppression-based personal liability too narrowly and set aside dismissal of claims against the personal respondents.

It declined to grant summary judgment for the appellants due to pleading and evidentiary gaps.

The applicant sought an interest in two properties based on constructive or resulting trust, an equalization of net family property, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant lacked credibility, had unclean hands, and failed to prove any contributions to the properties.

The court determined the date of separation was in April 2013, making the equalization claim time-barred under the Family Law Act.

The spousal support claim was also dismissed.

Despite the respondents' success, no costs were awarded because they had knowingly breached prior court orders regarding the properties.

The appellant vendor appealed a summary judgment that granted specific performance to purchasers of three townhomes and dismissed the vendor's motion for forfeiture of deposits.

The transactions failed to close on the scheduled date due to delayed mortgage funds.

The motion judge found the vendor in anticipatory breach for prematurely terminating the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), ruling that the "time is of the essence" clause did not impose a specific closing time and that the vendor acted unreasonably.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the interpretation of the "time is of the essence" clause or the finding of anticipatory breach and bad faith.

The Court also denied leave to appeal the costs award, finding no error in principle or irrationality in the quantum.

The Applicant sought primary residence of the children and remedies for the Respondent's breaches of previous orders.

The Respondent cross-moved for shared parenting.

The court admitted surreptitiously recorded conversations between the Respondent and the child, finding them highly probative of the child's best interests despite policy against such recordings.

The court found evidence of family violence and the Respondent's lack of respect for court orders and inability to co-parent.

Primary residence was granted to the Applicant, with a specific parenting schedule for the Respondent.

The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Applicant for vehicle rental costs, lock replacement, and to return the family vehicle.

The Respondent was also ordered to reimburse the joint line of credit for funds improperly withdrawn and interest charges.

The court also ordered mutual questioning and OCL involvement.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment and specific performance regarding agreements of purchase and sale, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendant acted in bad faith and considered the plaintiffs' Rule 49 offers.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' requested amount of $41,187, finding it excessive given the unified representation of the three plaintiffs.

Instead, the court awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs fixed at $17,500, using the defendant's own full indemnity cost outline as a benchmark for reasonableness.

The plaintiffs sought specific performance of three Agreements of Purchase and Sale for neighboring homes, alleging the defendant wrongly repudiated the contracts.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action, discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation, and damages.

The court found that the plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to close the transactions, and that the defendant acted in bad faith by prematurely terminating the agreements, refusing a reasonable extension, and attempting to rely on a "time is of the essence" clause despite its own conduct and a conflicting document registration agreement.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ordering specific performance, and dismissed the defendant's cross-motion.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the child's surname to a hyphenated name, arguing a material change in circumstances due to increased access and bonding.

The respondent mother, who has sole custody, brought a cross-motion to enforce a prior consent order regarding section 7 expenses, life insurance, and RESP contributions.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that under the Change of Name Act, only a person with lawful custody can apply for a name change, and the father had not sought to vary the custody order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the mother's enforcement motion, ordering the father to authorize direct dental claims, pay his share of guitar lessons, provide proof of life insurance, and deposit $10,000 into the mother's RESP for the child.

Following a seven-day family law trial, the court resolved outstanding monetary issues including equalization of net family property and child support.

The court permitted the respondent to pursue an equalization claim despite deficient pleadings, ordering the applicant to pay $474.50.

The court declined to impute additional income to the applicant for intentional under-employment, finding his reduced hours were due to construction industry conditions and bona fide medical leaves.

Given the new equal shared parenting arrangement, the court applied section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered the applicant to pay a set-off amount of $341 per month in child support, with section 7 expenses apportioned 70/30.

The court addressed two motions concerning jurisdiction over custody and access of two children.

The applicant father initiated divorce proceedings in Ontario, claiming custody, while the respondent mother initiated parallel proceedings in Québec and disputed Ontario's jurisdiction.

The central issue was whether the children were habitually resident in Ontario, specifically whether the mother had agreed to a permanent change in residency or if it was time-limited.

The court found that the mother had knowingly agreed to the children residing with the father in Ontario without a time-limited condition, and her subsequent unilateral assertions of a temporary arrangement were not acknowledged or agreed to by the father.

Consequently, the court declared Ontario to be the children's habitual residence and assumed jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody of the parties' nine-year-old son to the respondent, as well as the trial judge's decisions regarding the matrimonial home valuation, division of notional proceeds, treatment of chattels, and a $125,000 costs award.

The parties had cohabited for 14 years and separated in May 2014.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds except for a calculation error relating to child support arrears, which was corrected.

The court upheld the custody award, finding the trial judge properly applied the best interests of the child test, and upheld the property division and costs award as discretionary decisions entitled to deference.