D. Cohen

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the Claimants' Notice of Arbitration for delay.

The Claimants sought compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from a 1997 expropriation.

The City argued the 21-year delay prejudiced its ability to respond.

The Tribunal found the delay was not solely the fault of the Claimants, noting periods of self-representation and the City's own delays in producing documents.

The Tribunal concluded the circumstances did not justify the extraordinary remedy of outright dismissal, which would deprive the Claimants of their right to seek compensation.

The motion was dismissed with no costs.

In a high-conflict family proceeding scheduled for trial within months, the father sought an interim order permitting him to change the children's long-standing private school to public schools closer to his residence.

The mother opposed the motion, emphasizing the stability of the existing school arrangement and the pending trial addressing custody and related issues.

The court considered the importance of maintaining the status quo in interim parenting disputes and the risk of effectively predetermining custody-related issues before trial.

Given the imminent trial and the absence of compelling evidence that a change was required in the children's best interests, the court declined to alter the established schooling arrangement.

Costs decision following a motion in a family law proceeding concerning property claims, disclosure, and child support.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs alleging the applicant’s bankruptcy was a tactical attempt to defeat property claims, but the court found insufficient evidence to reach that conclusion.

The court noted that the respondent achieved the vast majority of the relief sought on the motion and that the motion was necessary to obtain reasonable disclosure and child support.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs against the applicant and additional costs against added respondents who failed to participate in the motion.

The costs were ordered as an incident of child support and enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The parties brought a motion in a family law proceeding to determine whether post‑termination commission payments received by a financial advisor under a “Commissions on Release” (CORe) program constituted property or income for the purposes of equalization under s. 4(1) of the Family Law Act.

The program paid fixed monthly amounts over ten years representing the capitalized value of future commissions from an advisor’s book of insurance business accumulated during employment.

The court held that the entitlement was a contractual chose in action with determinable value derived from commissions earned during the marriage.

Unlike professional licences or disability benefits tied to future personal services, the payments reflected value created during the marriage and were capable of valuation.

The CORe entitlement accumulated during the marriage was therefore property subject to equalization.

The respondent brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking interim child support, the addition of corporate and individual parties, third-party disclosure, questioning, and other procedural relief.

The court found that the applicant’s financial disclosure was unreliable and that corporate transfers to a family member raised legitimate concerns regarding income and asset concealment.

The court added the applicant’s brother and related corporation as parties and ordered document production and questioning of the brother, as well as limited third‑party disclosure from the applicant’s mother.

For interim purposes, the court imputed income to the applicant and ordered temporary child support based on shared custody.

Requests for interim disbursements and security for costs were dismissed.