Christopher A. Mamo

On a long motion in a family law proceeding, the respondent wife sought a substantial interim disbursement to fund valuation, forensic document review, and future litigation steps in a dispute involving alleged improper sale of a matrimonial home, disputed intrafamily loans, equalization, and support.

The court held that the threshold merit standard on an interim disbursement motion is not onerous and found sufficient merit in the wife's claims concerning the separation date, the characterization of the property transaction, the legitimacy or discounting of alleged debts to the paternal grandparents, and the need to test the husband's business valuation and income evidence.

The court further found that the wife lacked the means to pursue the litigation, that the playing field was not level, and that the husband had or could access resources to pay.

The requested amount was reduced for proportionality, and an interim disbursement of $137,500.00 was ordered within 30 days.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a consent order requiring the respondent father to comply with a court-ordered therapeutic reunification process and to provide photographs and weekly updates about the children.

Over 5.5 years of litigation, multiple clinicians found the father obstructed the children's relationship with the mother, while psychological assessments confirmed the mother posed no risk to the children.

The court found multiple breaches of the consent order, declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying father given his pattern of chronic non-compliance, and imposed monetary penalties under Rule 1(8)(a.1) of the Family Law Rules to incentivize future compliance with the therapeutic process.

The appellants, trustees of an estate and related corporations, appealed and sought to set aside an arbitral award granting the respondent $275,000 as an oppression remedy and ordering occupation rent.

The respondent, a 94-year-old widow, had been pushed out of the family business by her late husband and the trustees.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the award, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act.

The court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator made no palpable and overriding error in finding oppression and that the equitable remedy awarded was entitled to significant deference.

The applicant, Hugh Kuang, sought an order for $4,110,000.00 in interim legal costs and disbursements to fund an upcoming trial under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and the Family Law Rules.

The respondents resisted, arguing that a prior consent order providing $1,000,000.00 did not establish the applicant's ongoing entitlement to interim funding.

The court determined that the prior consent order resolved the issue of entitlement, leaving only the questions of compliance and quantum.

Finding the applicant's proposed budget excessive but recognizing the complexity of the litigation, the court granted the motion in part and ordered the corporate respondents to pay $2,725,000.00 in four staged payments.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the applicant to appoint an investigative receiver-monitor and for interim disbursements in a complex corporate/family dispute.

Although most issues were settled just before the scheduled hearing, the court found compelling reasons to award costs to the applicant due to the respondents' litigation conduct, including failure to provide proper financial disclosure and late capitulation on key issues.

The applicant was deemed the successful party, having secured the appointment of their proposed receiver and interim disbursements of $1 million.

The court awarded $125,000 in costs to the applicant, balancing the applicant's success against the proportionality of the fees incurred, and declined to order joint and several liability as requested, preserving the issue for trial.

This decision addresses the costs of a complex motion concerning the interpretation of an interim preservation order's "usual and ordinary course of business" term.

The applicant sought partial recovery costs of approximately $105,000, while the respondents proposed $25,000.

The court awarded the applicant $98,000, finding them overwhelmingly successful on the key issues.

The court emphasized proportionality, the complexity and high stakes of the litigation, and the respondents' conduct, including significant delays, late affidavit delivery, and a "scorched earth policy" which unnecessarily increased costs.

This motion concerned the interpretation of the term “usual and ordinary course of business” as it applied to corporate respondents in an interim preservation order.

The corporate respondents sought an expansive interpretation to allow significant financial transactions, including leveraging properties and transferring funds for a private mortgage lending business.

The applicant sought a narrow interpretation to preserve assets.

The court applied principles of judicial order interpretation, emphasizing context and purpose, and found the respondents' proposed interpretation would negate the preservation order's effect.

The court adopted a narrow definition, limiting “usual and ordinary course of business” to day-to-day operations and management, explicitly excluding large-scale asset encumbrance or intercorporate fund transfers for investment.

All other relief sought by the respondents was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary orders for sole decision-making authority regarding the children's education, increased child and spousal support, and production of text messages between the respondent father and her ex-boyfriend.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the proposed private school enrollment was not in the child's best interests, the existing voluntary support payments were adequate, and the requested text messages were irrelevant to the proceedings.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased parenting time with the parties' 7-year-old child pending a 21-day trial.

The father sought equal time or, alternatively, an additional evening.

A section 30 assessment report raised concerns about the mother's ability to support the child's relationship with the father and noted the child's clear alignment with the mother.

The court found that leaving the status quo in place pending trial would jeopardize the child's relationship with the father.

The court granted the motion in part, awarding the father additional overnights but declining to order equal time on an interim basis.

The applicant brought a motion to appoint a replacement arbitrator after the original arbitrator resigned.

The respondents argued that the resignation terminated the arbitration process and the matter should return to court.

The court interpreted the parties' Mediation-Arbitration Agreement and the Arbitration Act, 1991, finding that a resignation constitutes a termination of the arbitrator's appointment, requiring the appointment of a replacement.

The court appointed the applicant's proposed replacement arbitrator and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Papageorgiou J. dated November 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside a default order that permitted the applicant father to proceed to an uncontested trial on parenting and property issues.

The mother had failed to file an Answer after relocating to British Columbia following a mental health crisis.

Applying the five-factor test for setting aside default judgments, the court found that while the motion was not brought promptly, the mother had a plausible excuse due to her mental health and lack of counsel.

Emphasizing that parenting decisions should be made on a full evidentiary record, the court set aside the default order on terms, allowing the mother to file an Answer while granting the father temporary sole decision-making responsibility and costs thrown away.

Following a successful urgent motion to return the parties' children from Florida, the applicant mother sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the respondent father acted in bad faith by unilaterally relocating the children and enrolling them in school in Florida in blatant contravention of a consent arbitral award.

Applying Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered costs on a full indemnity scale, reduced slightly for excessive hourly rates and administrative tasks, fixing the award at $17,200.

The parties returned to court to address temporary parenting arrangements and the appointment of a section 30 assessor.

The father and paternal grandparents sought expanded, in-person parenting time during the summer, while the mother opposed in-person visits and requested that the assessment be conducted entirely virtually.

The court found that virtual visits had been positive and ordered the mother to travel to Ottawa with the children for the summer to facilitate graduated in-person visits.

The court also appointed the father's proposed assessor, requiring in-person observation visits due to the complex family dynamics and allegations of domestic violence.

The court addressed costs for a prior motion where the respondent father sought parenting relief.

The applicant mother was largely successful in resisting the father's requests regarding the children's access and communication, though the father obtained some relief regarding the location of access and the continuation of a prior consent order.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs, while the father argued for no costs or a substantial reduction.

The court, applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, found the mother to be the more successful party overall, but noted her offer to settle lacked a "true element of compromise" and her unreasonable behaviour in failing to commence recommended counselling.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 for the mother, payable by the father upon specific future events.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $20,361.76 following a motion where she obtained a preservation order and financial disclosure after the respondent breached a prior court order by surreptitiously refinancing a property.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by intentionally breaching the order to conceal information.

However, because success on the motion was divided and the applicant also acted somewhat unreasonably, the court awarded costs of $15,000 to the applicant, payable upon delayed terms due to the respondent's unemployment.

The applicant sought various urgent relief, including a certificate of pending litigation and a Mareva injunction, after the respondent breached a court order by refinancing a property without consent, increasing its debt load.

The court dismissed the certificate of pending litigation and Mareva injunction requests, finding the applicant failed to meet the high thresholds.

However, the court granted a preservation order against the property and certain funds, ordered specific disclosure, and allowed the applicant to inspect the property, emphasizing the importance of obeying court orders and protecting potential support and property claims.

The applicant sought interim relief, which was granted by an earlier endorsement.

The respondent failed to file responding materials by the deadline and requested an adjournment to allow newly retained counsel to finalize materials and argue the motion, particularly regarding access.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing the motion was moot as the children had been returned to her.

The court acknowledged the respondent's delay but found it was not in a position to foreclose the respondent's access request without reviewing his sworn evidence.

The motion was adjourned for a further telephone conference to assess the urgency of the respondent's access terms.

Interim orders were made regarding primary care, communication through Our Family Wizard, and reservation of costs.

The applicant sought urgent relief for the return of two children, alleging unlawful withholding by the respondent amidst the COVID-19 situation.

The court found the matter urgent and granted the applicant's interim motion, ordering the immediate return of the children to the applicant's care and control, maintaining the status quo.

The respondent's claim of a 50/50 parenting agreement was not supported by the evidence.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary access order to increase his parenting time with the parties' two children, aged 16 and 11.

The mother opposed the motion, citing a history of domestic violence and the children's expressed fears.

Relying on Voice of the Child reports, the court declined to force the 16-year-old to attend access against her will, noting her age and right to withdraw from parental control.

The court also dismissed the father's request to increase access to the 11-year-old, finding that the maximum contact principle was outweighed by the child's best interests and need for security.