Anthony M. Speciale

Khatija Khatri, successful in an application to discharge instruments from her property title, sought substantial indemnity costs.

Talat Khan, the respondent, opposed, citing Khatri's delay and uncooperative conduct, and the reinstatement of a Writ of Seizure and Sale in a related action.

The court awarded Khatri substantial indemnity costs from the date of her offer to settle, acknowledging her success on the application.

However, the quantum was reduced due to both parties' litigation conduct and the applicant's significant delay in pursuing the application.

The final costs award of $33,206.33 was stayed pending the determination of costs in a related "Brampton action."

This decision addresses multiple motions in a long-standing family law enforcement action.

The court granted Khatija Khatri's application to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and other instruments from title to Bellwood Farm, finding the CPL had no legal basis after a prior order was set aside and the underlying application dismissed.

The court also granted Mohammad Munir Subhani and Khatija Khatri's motion to dismiss the action against them for inordinate and inexcusable delay, citing prejudice due to fading memories and health issues of key witnesses.

Talat Khan's motion for a new CPL was dismissed due to the dismissal of the action against those defendants and her own delay.

However, Talat Khan's motion for the reinstatement of a Writ of Seizure and Sale (No. 98-0259) was granted, as it was a support enforcement writ under the Family Law Rules and thus did not expire, and its removal was improper.

The plaintiffs sought to pursue claims regarding inter vivos transfers made by Caterina Iacobelli, which had been previously dismissed by a summary judgment order in 1997.

Despite subsequent rulings that allowed for further inquiry into these transfers if new evidence emerged from cross-examinations, the plaintiffs failed to present evidence establishing a cause of action based on those cross-examinations.

The court found that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to substantiate their claims but did not do so, leading to the dismissal of their motion to pursue the inter vivos transfer claims.