Appeared as counsel in 5 cases (2013–2023)
3 total
The court treated a materially false garnishee statement as no statement at all and ordered extensive financial disclosure.
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) brought a motion against Samuel J. Berkovits (debtor) and 1539058 Ontario Inc. (garnishee) to enforce a judgment via garnishment.
CIBC argued that the garnishee's statement was materially false and misleading, effectively amounting to no statement at all, due to late delivery, omissions, and a lack of disclosure regarding payments and reimbursements to the debtor.
The court found that the debtor and garnishee had arranged their finances to avoid garnishment.
The court deemed the garnishee's statement materially deficient and ordered the garnishee to provide extensive documentation regarding all compensation, payments, and personal expenses paid on behalf of the debtor.
The determination of the final amount payable by the garnishee was adjourned pending this disclosure.
Motion to stay support enforcement and temporarily vary support dismissed due to non-disclosure and unclean hands.
The respondent father brought a motion to stay the enforcement of his child and spousal support arrears and to temporarily vary his support obligations pending a final determination of his Motion to Change.
He argued that his termination from employment constituted a material change in circumstances.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to establish a strong prima facie case due to his failure to file his 2023 income tax return.
The court also found no clear case of hardship, a lack of urgency, and that the respondent did not come to court with clean hands, having unilaterally ceased support payments and failed to provide updated financial disclosure.
The court granted a motion to sever the divorce from corollary issues, finding no legal disadvantage to the respondent's foreign domestic violence claim.
The applicant brought a motion to sever the divorce from all corollary relief, which the respondent opposed, arguing it would prejudice her ongoing domestic violence claim in India.
The court, applying Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules, found that the respondent would not be legally disadvantaged by the severance, relying on expert evidence regarding Indian law which indicated that a divorce decree would not absolve liability or deny benefits under the Protection for Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The court also declined to exercise its residual discretion to refuse severance, finding no evidence of applicant's non-compliance or delay.
The motion to sever the divorce was granted.
