D. Gelgoot

The court determined costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time and decision-making.

The applicant father sought substantial parenting time, while the respondent mother sought a restrictive schedule and sole decision-making.

The court found that success was divided, as neither party achieved their primary positions.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The respondent husband brought an interim motion seeking spousal support and the release of funds from the sale of the matrimonial home to fund his litigation and business expenses.

The court found the respondent demonstrated a prima facie case of need for non-compensatory support, imputing a minimum wage income to him and ordering the applicant to pay $2,082 per month.

The court declined to release the full requested funds from the home sale due to the respondent's failure to provide business disclosure, but ordered $15,000 released specifically to pay his accountant to obtain and disclose those records.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the sale of a jointly owned property in the context of ongoing family litigation.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it would be contrary to the children's best interests and that she wished to purchase the applicant's interest if successful in her equitable claims at trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the property was not the principal residence of either party, the applicant was incurring significant carrying costs, and the sale would not negatively impact the children.

The court ordered the property sold and the net proceeds paid into court.

The applicant moved to enforce prior disclosure orders, fix dates for questioning, and direct terms for the parties' IT consultants to confer.

The respondent sought an adjournment due to his principal counsel's trial commitments and late service of motion materials.

The court denied the adjournment, finding no unfairness to the respondent and noting the severe prejudice that further delay would cause to the scheduled trial management conference.

The court ordered the respondent to produce the requested electronic data, financial back-up documents, and a privilege log, and directed the IT consultants to confer without counsel present to facilitate the extraction of electronic evidence.

The respondent wife in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking an order that service of her Answer and Amended Answer on the applicant husband be deemed service on 36 added corporate and trust respondents, arguing the husband was their alter ego.

The court found insufficient evidence on the motion to make an alter ego finding.

The court validated service on one Ontario corporation and two entities in non-contracting states under the Rules of Civil Procedure as they had actual notice.

However, the court held it had no discretion to validate service on the remaining entities located in Hague Convention contracting states, as Rule 17.05(3) is mandatory and a complete code for service abroad.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleadings and a separate motion for contempt, both based on substantially similar allegations of breaching court orders.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the motion to strike pending the disposition of the contempt motion, arguing that responding to the motion to strike would effectively compel him to testify and violate his right against self-incrimination in the quasi-criminal contempt proceeding.

The court agreed, finding that the applicant's right to a fair trial on the contempt motion would be prejudiced if he were forced to respond to the civil motion to strike first.

The court ordered the motion to strike stayed pending the resolution of the contempt motion.