Brent Angelique Mendiola

On an interim family law motion, the moving party sought child support, spousal support, and interim costs under r. 24(25) of the Family Law Rules while jurisdiction was disputed in parallel Yemen proceedings.

The court imputed interim income to the responding party based on available U.S. tax evidence and ordered retroactive monthly child support and interim spousal support from July 1, 2025, but declined to order interim s. 7 expenses on the existing record.

The court rejected the argument that a unilateral Yemen talaq barred interim spousal support, citing Divorce Act threshold requirements and public policy concerns.

The court granted substantial interim costs to level the litigation playing field and stayed the jurisdiction motion until support arrears and interim costs were paid.

Costs of the motion were also awarded to the moving party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order transferring a matter from the Family Law Team to the Civil Law Team in Toronto.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was good reason to doubt the motion judge's finding on jurisdiction, the decision to have the matter addressed by the Civil Law Team was an exercise of administrative discretion that did not raise a matter of such importance to warrant leave to appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to the nonpayment of previous costs awards totaling $25,700.

On the eve of the hearing, the parties settled the motion, leaving only the issue of costs to be decided.

The plaintiff sought costs of approximately $15,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued for $2,500 to $3,500.

The court found the motion was unnecessary and caused by the defendants' failure to pay prior awards, but reduced the plaintiff's claimed hours for an articling student.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant brought an application for the partition and sale of a property co-owned with his brother.

The brother brought a cross-application claiming a 77% ownership interest based on a constructive trust, arguing that a $120,000 payment from their mother used to pay down the mortgage was a gift to him.

The court found that the $120,000 payment was a loan to both brothers, not a gift to one.

The court declared the brothers to be 50:50 owners, ordered the partition and sale of the property, and directed that the mother have a first charge of $120,000 on the net proceeds to repay the loan.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction simpliciter over the respondent's action and that Ontario was not forum non conveniens.

The underlying action involved claims for breach of contract, negligence, and other torts arising from a share purchase agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the Van Breda presumptive connecting factors for jurisdiction, and no basis to interfere with her discretionary decision regarding forum non conveniens.