Bohdan A. Shulakewych

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' $20 million claim arising from the revocation of the plaintiff's aviation delegation.

The court struck the claims for conspiracy, breach of contract, injurious falsehood, negligence, wrongful dismissal, and intentional interference with contractual relations for failing to plead necessary elements, but granted leave to amend.

The court declined to strike the claim for misfeasance in public office, finding it adequately pleaded, and dismissed the defendants' motion to strike portions of the claim as scandalous or an abuse of process.

The parties brought competing motions regarding three disputed terms of their 2019 Minutes of Settlement: the removal of snowmobiles, the form of a share transfer agreement, and the payout of a life insurance policy.

The court ordered the applicant to remove the snowmobiles by a specific date, rejected the applicant's complex share transfer agreement in favour of a simpler one with basic representations and an indemnity, and refused to set aside the life insurance provision, finding no unilateral or mutual mistake that would justify rescission.

This is a costs decision following a Hague Convention application.

The father sought the return of two children wrongfully retained in Canada by the mother.

The father was entirely successful in his application, with the court finding overwhelming evidence that the children's habitual residence was the United Kingdom and that the father had not consented to or acquiesced in their retention in Canada.

The court awarded costs to the father on both a full recovery basis under the Family Law Rules and under Article 26 of the Hague Convention, finding the mother's conduct unreasonable in proceeding to trial without adequate evidence to support her claims.

The applicant sought an interim costs order under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules requiring the respondent to advance funds for anticipated questioning and litigation expenses relating to spousal support and property equalization claims.

The court emphasized that the discretion to award interim costs must be exercised to ensure procedural fairness and a level playing field.

The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate financial need or provide sufficient evidence of anticipated legal expenses.

Evidence showed the applicant was receiving spousal support, benefitting from a partner’s contribution to household expenses, had taken a recent vacation, and had chosen to return to school instead of seeking full-time employment.

In the absence of detailed cost estimates or a bill of costs, the court declined to order interim costs but left open the possibility of a renewed motion with fuller evidence.

The appellant failed to appear for his appeal from an order dismissing his motion to set aside an uncontested trial judgment in a protracted matrimonial dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned due to his non-attendance.

The Court further noted it would have dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process, as the appellant had wilfully breached multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and support payments, and had been 'gaming the process'.

The applicants, former volunteer board members of a charity, were unsuccessful in their application to set aside an election.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of nearly $100,000, including costs against the applicants' solicitor personally.

The court rejected the argument that the applicants' volunteer status immunized them from costs, but found the respondents' pre-litigation conduct warranted a reduction.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale at $30,000 plus disbursements, and the issue of the solicitor's personal liability was reserved.

The applicants, former board members of a hospice charity, sought judicial review and leave to appeal several rulings made by a court-appointed arbitrator regarding a disputed board election.

They also sought to set aside the election results based on alleged irregularities.

The court held that judicial review is not available for decisions of a private consensual arbitrator.

The court further found that the applicants were out of time to appeal most of the arbitral awards under the Arbitration Act, and regardless, the arbitrator made no errors of law.

Finally, the court declined to set aside the election results, finding that the alleged irregularities were minor and did not go to the heart of the electoral process.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her motion for an annulment of her marriage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly concluded the appellant failed to overcome the significant presumption of the validity of her marriage.

The appellant husband appealed an order dismissing his application to vary a support order and appointing the respondent wife as an equitable receiver of his pension benefits to satisfy support and equalization obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the variation application, finding the husband's early retirement was voluntary.

However, the Court set aside the appointment of the wife as an equitable receiver, holding that the applicable pension legislation prohibits the enforcement of an equalization order against pension benefits.

The Court also found the appointment unnecessary for the support obligation, as the pension board was already diverting funds at source.