Daniel Martin Anthony

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary consent order for child and spousal support, arguing his commission-based income was decimated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found it had jurisdiction to vary the temporary order in these exceptional circumstances.

Recognizing the unprecedented economic impact of the pandemic, the court varied support retroactively to June 2020 based on the father's reduced 2020 income and implemented a novel mechanism requiring support to be adjusted every four months based on his annualized income for the preceding period.

The Applicant brought a 14B motion seeking leave to file an affidavit containing a voice recording of conversations with the children, alleging the Respondent coached them.

The Respondent opposed the request and sought to file a responsive affidavit.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding the evidence in both affidavits and the recording to be unnecessary, unreliable, highly prejudicial, and of little probative value.

The court emphasized that parents should not gather evidence from their children and that the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) is the appropriate mechanism for ascertaining children's views.

An order was also made for both parents to refrain from involving the children in the litigation.

The applicant brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary issues and for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for increased interim child and spousal support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no compelling reasons to preclude it, and severed the divorce.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the applicant to pay $5,300 in monthly child support and $14,000 in monthly spousal support based on a three-year average of his business income.

The plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their summary judgment motion.

The defendant, as the successful party on that motion, sought substantial or partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge, citing that the merits were not yet adjudicated, work product would be used at trial, credibility issues remained, and they still had a reasonable chance to prevail.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the case warranted reserving costs to the cause, as the ultimate outcome depended on credibility at trial.

The defendant's request for immediate costs was dismissed, and costs were ordered in the cause.

The plaintiffs, parents of the defendant's estranged spouse, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of a $43,246.36 loan made to their son-in-law.

The loan, provided for condominium renovations, lacked formal documentation, and repayment terms were disputed.

The defendant opposed the motion, highlighting credibility issues in the affidavits and the linkage to ongoing family law proceedings where his spouse had agreed to assume part of the debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding significant conflicting evidence and credibility issues that required cross-examination, which is not permitted under Simplified Procedure Rules for affidavits, making a summary judgment inappropriate.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision regarding a failed real estate closing.

The motion judge found that neither party was prepared to close on the agreed date, meaning the appellant could not unilaterally terminate the agreement.

The respondent was entitled to set a new closing date.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the respondent was ready to close on the new date and that the representation regarding utilities reaching the lot line was a warranty, not a condition precedent.

The appeal was dismissed, with the closing date amended to May 10, 2010.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a debenture, arguing that a factual dispute over the exercise of an option and a claim for equitable set-off based on alleged misrepresentations raised triable issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the debenture created a stand-alone debt unaffected by the option agreement, and that the alleged misrepresentations did not go to the root of the respondent's claim.