Caroline Hyunyoung Kim

The defendant brought a motion seeking production of documents identifying the source of income reported in the plaintiff's and Analitix Group Inc.'s income tax returns for 2013-2017, including T4s and T4As.

This request arose during discovery in a wrongful termination action where the plaintiff's employment status (employee vs. independent contractor) was a key issue.

The court found the request to be a proper follow-up question and relevant to the pleadings, particularly concerning whether the plaintiff worked exclusively for the defendant.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested documents, with costs awarded to the defendant.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's orders regarding child support, arrears, and parenting time.

The parties had a separation agreement, but the mother sought to enforce its terms after a child changed residence to live with her full-time.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's calculation of child support and arrears, finding no error in applying the Guidelines.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred by issuing a final order for parenting time when he had indicated during the hearing it would be an interim order, thereby denying procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed in part to make the parenting time order interim and to slightly reduce the costs awarded to the mother.

The parties brought urgent cross-motions prior to a case conference regarding parenting time and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The father sought primary residence and supervised parenting time for the mother, alleging she engaged in irrational conduct including having him involuntarily admitted for psychiatric observation.

The mother sought primary residence and exclusive possession of the home.

The court dismissed the father's request for supervised parenting time, finding no risk of harm, and ordered a 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule on an interim interim basis.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, noting the father's significantly higher income allowed him to secure alternate accommodation.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an appeal and underlying arbitration concerning child vaccination decisions.

The appellant father had successfully appealed an arbitrator's decision, gaining sole final responsibility for vaccination-related decisions for the children.

The court considered the principles governing costs awards, including the presumptive entitlement of the successful party, the treatment of pro bono counsel for costs recovery, and the assessment of offers to settle.

The court found the appellant was the successful party but did not beat his offer to settle.

It concluded that costs on a partial indemnity scale were appropriate, ordering the respondent to pay the appellant $52,000 all-inclusive for costs of both the appeal and arbitration.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's award that determined it was not in the best interests of the parties' two children to be vaccinated.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator erred in his gatekeeping function by qualifying the respondent's experts, whose evidence on vaccine safety was unreliable and outside their expertise.

The arbitrator also erred by failing to admit government immunization guides under the public documents exception to the hearsay rule.

Having excluded the respondent's expert evidence and admitted the public documents and fresh expert evidence, the court found that the children's best interests required vaccination.

The appellant was granted sole decision-making responsibility for the children's vaccinations, and the respondent was ordered not to tell the children that vaccines are unsafe.

The moving party (respondent mother) brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge from hearing an appeal regarding the vaccination of the parties' children.

The moving party argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed based on the judge's prior preliminary rulings in the case, decisions in unrelated family law cases involving public health guidelines, and media coverage of those decisions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the prior decisions were based on existing law and did not demonstrate that the judge had entered the fray or predetermined the issues.

The court also held that a reasonable person would not rely on provocative media articles to conclude the judge could not decide the appeal fairly.

This decision addresses a motion for leave to intervene brought by the Medical Officer of Health (City of Toronto) (MOH) in an appeal concerning the vaccination of children.

The appellant sought to overturn an arbitrator's decision that declined to order the children's vaccination, while the respondent opposed vaccination.

The court determined it had jurisdiction to hear the intervention motion remotely and in writing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the test for intervention, the court found that the MOH had a substantial public interest in the issues of vaccine efficacy, expert evidence gatekeeping, and judicial notice of public health policy.

The MOH's distinct public health perspective was deemed a useful contribution without causing injustice to the parties.

Leave to intervene was granted.

The appellant father and respondent mother both brought motions to introduce fresh evidence in an appeal from an arbitrator's decision declining to order their children be vaccinated.

The court applied a relaxed Palmer test, given the case involved the best interests of children.

The court admitted the father's fresh expert evidence regarding vaccine safety and the mother's genetic variation, as well as evidence challenging the credibility of one of the mother's experts.

The court also admitted the mother's fresh evidence from the children's family doctor regarding their current health and the psychological impact of the litigation.

A temporary publication ban on the children's health information was made permanent.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion and defense of a cross-motion.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by not consenting to an order regarding a property purchased with protected funds, unnecessarily complicating the matter.

The respondent's non-severable offer to settle was not considered a genuine compromise.

The court awarded the applicant $11,400 in costs, payable from the respondent's frozen corporate accounts.

The applicant brought a motion to add a newly purchased property to an existing non-dissipation order, arguing it was purchased with protected corporate funds.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to unfreeze his accounts and release funds, claiming he needed money for living expenses and corporate taxes.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the property was purchased with protected funds.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, noting his failure to provide court-ordered financial disclosure had delayed the business valuation necessary to determine the equalization payment.