Ashkan Mazinani

The applicant wife brought a motion for payment of occupation rent and carrying costs for the jointly held matrimonial home, arguing the respondent husband had agreed to pay them.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to strike portions of an affidavit containing without-prejudice communications and sought dismissal of the applicant's motion.

The court admitted portions of the without-prejudice letter to prove the scope of settlement, but redacted other portions.

The court declined to order temporary occupation rent, referring the issue to trial.

The request for carrying costs was also dismissed, as the applicant provided no updated financial statement to demonstrate need.

The respondent father brought an urgent triage request to schedule a motion prior to a case conference, seeking to limit contact between the applicant mother and their 12-year-old daughter.

The court considered the test for urgency under Rule 14(4.2) and recent jurisprudence regarding institutional delay as a potential tool of coercive control.

The court held that institutional delay alone, without evidence of manipulation by a controlling party, cannot justify waiving the case conference requirement.

The request for an urgent motion was dismissed, but the alternative request to schedule an urgent case conference was granted.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for interim parenting time with her seven-year-old daughter.

The mother was subject to criminal bail conditions prohibiting her from contacting or being within 500 metres of the child due to numerous criminal charges, including dangerous driving and assault.

The court declined to make an interim parenting order that conflicted with the criminal release orders, finding it inappropriate to make an order 'subject to bail variation'.

The court granted consent orders maintaining the child's schooling and medical care, and ordered a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent claimed inability to pay and disputed entitlement.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for spousal support based on her need and the length of the marriage.

Due to inconsistencies in the respondent's financial disclosure and reported expenses far exceeding his reported income, the court imputed his income at $142,598 based on the average of his reported yearly expenses.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered to commence following the sale of the matrimonial home.

At the outset of a family law trial, the court noted that the parties' last common habitual residence was in Iran.

Pursuant to section 15 of the Family Law Act, the parties' property rights are governed by Iranian law.

Because neither party had filed expert evidence on Iranian law, the court adjourned the trial to allow the parties to obtain and file expert reports, and converted the remainder of the attendance into a settlement conference.

The applicant commenced a family law application seeking to declare the deceased respondent's religious marriage to the second respondent void, and to annul that marriage on the basis of bigamy.

The second respondent claimed to be a common law spouse entitled to spousal support under Part III of the Family Law Act.

The court found the proceeding moot because the deceased respondent had already died before the application was commenced, such that he was no longer a "spouse" under either the Family Law Act or the Divorce Act.

The second respondent's only available remedies lie in an application for dependent's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The proceeding was dismissed as moot without prejudice to those rights.

The applicant sought to vary an interim order requiring her to hold $150,000 in trust as security for the respondents' claims.

The applicant also sought release of funds from the sale of two properties: an investment property (Donway) and a pre-construction condominium (Elgin).

The respondents brought cross-motions for disclosure and compliance with prior court orders.

The court found that the applicant had not fully complied with prior orders from Justice Pinto and Justice Kraft regarding the trust funds.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion and granted the respondents' requests for disclosure and compliance orders.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs to both respondents.

This endorsement addresses a motion regarding the treatment of the parties’ Mahr (Islamic marriage contract) in the context of Ontario’s family property law regime.

The court considers whether the Mahr should be included in the net family property (NFP) calculation, the parties’ pleadings and standing, and issues of fairness.

The court rules that the Mahr is to be included as both a date of marriage and valuation date asset and debt in the NFP calculation, finding no valid withdrawal or agreement to exclude it.

The decision also addresses the parties’ ability to raise unconscionability under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act at a later stage.

The court considered a motion for summary judgment by Payam Bozorgi, who was added as a party to Shabnam Shokoufimoghiman’s family law application against her former spouse, Amir Ebrahim Bozorgi.

Payam sought to dismiss the claims against him and to be removed as a party.

The court found there was no genuine issue for trial regarding Shabnam’s trust claims against Payam, but there was a genuine issue for trial on the fraudulent conveyance claim.

Payam’s request to be removed as a party was denied, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement on grounds of duress, alleging blackmail by the Respondent and his girlfriend.

The court conducted a bifurcated trial on this issue.

The court found that while the Applicant felt pressured and vulnerable, her vulnerabilities were compensated by her lawyer's professional assistance, and the alleged blackmail by the girlfriend occurred after the agreement was signed.

The application to set aside the agreement on grounds of duress was dismissed.

This focused trial addressed the beneficial ownership of a condominium property for the purpose of calculating Net Family Property in a divorce proceeding.

The Applicant Husband argued the Respondent Wife was the sole beneficial owner, while the Respondent Wife contended her mother (Roya Souzankari) was the sole beneficial owner via a purchase money resulting trust.

The court found that the mother held a 64% beneficial interest and the wife held a 36% beneficial interest, based on their respective financial contributions to the property's acquisition, including initial deposits and subsequent mortgage principal payments.

The court dismissed both parties' extreme positions and provided a methodology for valuing the wife's interest at the date of marriage and separation.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a purported full and final settlement, which had been incorporated into a consent order, concerning spousal support, equalization, and the return of a vehicle.

The respondent opposed the proposed distribution of funds and sought transfer of the vehicle to her.

The court dismissed the motion to enforce, finding genuine issues requiring a trial.

Key issues included whether all essential terms were agreed upon (specifically regarding the vehicle) and whether the settlement was a result of unilateral or mutual mistake, particularly concerning a significant unilateral withdrawal from a joint line of credit by the applicant.

The court emphasized that the failure of parties to define the basis for relief requested was a sufficient ground for dismissal.

In an uncontested trial, the Applicant sought spousal support, a declaration of 50% ownership in a restaurant business via resulting trust, and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

The court found the Applicant was a "spouse" and entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, imputing an income of $200,000 to the Respondent and ordering $2,625 monthly retroactive and ongoing support.

The court also declared the Applicant's 50% ownership interest in the restaurant based on a purchase money resulting trust, given her joint financing and operational contributions.

Finally, the court ordered the sale of the home (located at 203 Habitant Drive), with proceeds divided 99% to the Applicant and 1% to the Respondent, finding no oppressive conduct.

Costs were reserved for further submissions.

The applicant and respondent each filed a 14B motion seeking the release of funds from the sale of their matrimonial home and reimbursement for renovation costs.

A dispute arose over the exact amount of reimbursement and the need for documentary proof, despite an earlier agreement capping the reimbursement at $7,500.

The court found the litigation of a minor dispute unnecessary and emphasized the parties' and counsels' duty to promote the objectives of the Family Law Rules.

The motions for costs were dismissed, and the court ordered the release of $75,000 to each party and a $7,500 reimbursement to the applicant, consistent with the original agreement.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a four-day trial on parenting and support.

The mother (applicant) was largely successful on parenting and more successful on financial issues, including imputed income and spousal support.

The father (respondent) engaged in serious unreasonable behaviour by breaching court orders regarding the child's return to Canada.

However, the mother was found to have acted in bad faith by altering a text message.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs, but ordered her to pay the father $5,000 due to her bad faith, resulting in a net costs award of $15,000 to the mother, payable in installments.

The applicant sought release of her share of proceeds from a jointly-owned property to close a condominium purchase and pay legal fees.

The primary respondent sought preservation of these funds as security for equalization claims.

A third-party respondent sought security for costs against the applicant for a trust claim.

The court ordered a partial release of funds for the condominium closing, with the remaining proceeds and a portion of the condominium's future sale proceeds to be held in trust as security for the primary respondent's equalization claims and the third-party respondent's potential costs.

The court found the trust claim against the third-party was not frivolous enough to warrant security for costs in the amount sought, but ordered a smaller amount to be held as security from the condo sale.

The Co-Respondents, Reza Dadras and Nasrin Hakimi (the "Parents-in-law"), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims made against them by the Applicant, Hossein Mehdian.

Hossein sought, among other things, a declaration of a 50% beneficial interest in a property (the "BP Property") held by the Parents-in-law, alleging unjust enrichment and seeking a constructive or resulting trust based on his and Katayoun's (his spouse and the Parents-in-law's daughter) monetary and non-monetary contributions.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, particularly due to the lack of evidence from Katayoun and the need for credibility assessments regarding the alleged contributions and mutual understanding.

However, the court granted the Parents-in-law's preliminary motion to strike certain inflammatory paragraphs from Hossein's Application and granted leave for Hossein to withdraw an erroneous spousal support claim against the Parents-in-law.

The court also addressed the admissibility of late-disclosed documents and the limitation period defence, finding both raised issues for trial.

The parties sought a consent order compelling Toronto Children's Aid Society (CAS) to expedite the disclosure of a file and staff report for an upcoming case conference, citing CAS's backlog.

The court refused to grant the order, stating that it would not intervene in CAS's internal workflow or prioritize disclosure requests without a justiciable issue, proper notice to CAS, and a legal basis for such an order.

The judge noted that a court order is not a means to circumvent institutional issues or to give plausible deniability to CAS for prioritizing certain cases.

The respondent mother moved for temporary spousal and child support and further disclosure.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the claims for interim spousal support and that the child support sought was less than what was already being paid.

The court also noted a significant factual dispute regarding the separation date and the respondent's income, including an unusual loan arrangement.

The motion for support was dismissed, and child support was ordered based on the court's income findings, which resulted in a lower amount than sought.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and related relief.

The parties, married for over 28 years, presented conflicting narratives regarding the wife's financial contributions.

The court found the wife had a prima facie entitlement to support and imputed an income of $3,000 per month to her for a housing benefit received from her parents.

Based on the husband's average annual income of $586,333, the court ordered him to pay $19,839 per month in interim spousal support.

The issue of retroactive support was left for trial, and the wife was made responsible for the mortgage and line of credit on the Hillcrest Property, while the husband was ordered to pay joint Visa balances and maintain the wife on his health plan.