Ashkan Mazinani

The Respondent brought a motion to set aside a final uncontested child support order, including substantial arrears, arguing lack of actual notice and an arguable defense.

The court found the Respondent's claims of non-receipt of documents and lack of awareness lacked credibility, noting his history of non-disclosure and sophisticated litigant status.

While acknowledging a potential triable issue for prospective support based on his retirement, the court dismissed the motion to set aside the fixed arrears, emphasizing the Respondent's willful non-disclosure and its negative impact on the administration of justice.

The court directed the Respondent to bring a new motion to change for future support with proper financial disclosure.

The parties separated after an arranged marriage, with the mother alleging a history of family violence and coercive control by the father.

The father sought primary residence or shared parenting, while the mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making, and supervised parenting time for the father.

The court found the father had engaged in family violence, made baseless allegations to child protection authorities, and posed an abduction risk.

The court awarded the mother primary residence and sole decision-making, ordered supervised parenting time for the father, issued a final restraining order against the father, and ordered retroactive child support based on imputed income.

The respondent father brought a motion for temporary primary care or equal parenting time and sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' 4-year-old child.

The applicant mother opposed, seeking primary care and sole decision-making responsibility, citing a history of family violence and poor communication.

The court found that the parties' high conflict and poor communication made joint decision-making inappropriate, granting the mother final decision-making authority after consultation.

The court ordered a temporary parenting schedule where the child resides primarily with the mother, with the father having parenting time three nights every two weeks, to provide stability for the young child.

The appellant, Shirmati Singh, appealed an order striking her pleadings for non-compliance with previous orders to pay occupation rent, which led to a default judgment for possession of a home.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no error in the motion judge's initial decision.

However, during the appeal hearing, the appellant's representative offered to pay the outstanding arrears.

The court made a conditional order, allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders striking pleadings and granting default judgment, provided the arrears were paid.

The payment was made, and the court determined that striking the pleadings was no longer a proportionate response given the removal of prejudice to the respondent.