Elena Elnaz Mazinani

Following a successful focused trial that invalidated a marriage contract, the applicant sought her costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the respondent's behaviour, which included inducing the applicant to sign an unconscionable contract and the estate trustees' subsequent draconian actions.

Finding that the applicant beat her offer to settle and that the respondent's behaviour warranted sanction, the court awarded the applicant her costs on a full indemnity basis, fixed at $129,293.40.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement on grounds of duress, alleging blackmail by the Respondent and his girlfriend.

The court conducted a bifurcated trial on this issue.

The court found that while the Applicant felt pressured and vulnerable, her vulnerabilities were compensated by her lawyer's professional assistance, and the alleged blackmail by the girlfriend occurred after the agreement was signed.

The application to set aside the agreement on grounds of duress was dismissed.

The Applicant Husband sought interim orders for primary residence of the children, specific parenting time, and joint decision-making.

The court dismissed the request for a change in primary residence, maintaining the status quo where the children primarily reside with the Respondent.

Joint decision-making was granted for two of the children, and temporary parenting time was ordered for the Applicant with all three children, including the eldest step-child.

The court also ordered an assessment by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer for all three children, including the step-child, despite the Respondent's initial reluctance.

Costs were to be borne by each party.

The Applicant sought an advance equalization payment or interim disbursement of $100,000 and an order for outstanding disclosure.

The court dismissed the financial requests, finding the Applicant had not demonstrated need, had prior funds unaccounted for, had surplus income, engaged in significant discretionary spending, and made no efforts to seek employment.

The court also found insufficient evidence to support the requested amount.

Regarding disclosure, the court found the Respondent had largely complied since retaining counsel, but ordered further responses on two specific items and a status update.

In an uncontested trial, the Applicant sought spousal support, a declaration of 50% ownership in a restaurant business via resulting trust, and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

The court found the Applicant was a "spouse" and entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, imputing an income of $200,000 to the Respondent and ordering $2,625 monthly retroactive and ongoing support.

The court also declared the Applicant's 50% ownership interest in the restaurant based on a purchase money resulting trust, given her joint financing and operational contributions.

Finally, the court ordered the sale of the home (located at 203 Habitant Drive), with proceeds divided 99% to the Applicant and 1% to the Respondent, finding no oppressive conduct.

Costs were reserved for further submissions.

This ruling addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The defendant, as the successful party, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis or, alternatively, partial indemnity.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendant, considering the complexity and importance of the motion to both parties.

The applicant and respondent each filed a 14B motion seeking the release of funds from the sale of their matrimonial home and reimbursement for renovation costs.

A dispute arose over the exact amount of reimbursement and the need for documentary proof, despite an earlier agreement capping the reimbursement at $7,500.

The court found the litigation of a minor dispute unnecessary and emphasized the parties' and counsels' duty to promote the objectives of the Family Law Rules.

The motions for costs were dismissed, and the court ordered the release of $75,000 to each party and a $7,500 reimbursement to the applicant, consistent with the original agreement.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a four-day trial on parenting and support.

The mother (applicant) was largely successful on parenting and more successful on financial issues, including imputed income and spousal support.

The father (respondent) engaged in serious unreasonable behaviour by breaching court orders regarding the child's return to Canada.

However, the mother was found to have acted in bad faith by altering a text message.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs, but ordered her to pay the father $5,000 due to her bad faith, resulting in a net costs award of $15,000 to the mother, payable in installments.

The applicant sought over $1 million in costs on a full-indemnity basis following a 12-day trial where she was largely successful.

The respondent conceded costs but argued for a lower amount of $350,000.

The court found the respondent engaged in bad faith and unreasonable conduct, including fraudulent transfer of shares and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court adjusted the applicant's requested costs for duplicative and excessive billing by some firms but ultimately awarded $950,000, finding it proportionate and reasonable given the respondent's conduct and the complexity of the litigation.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and the release of funds.

The parties consented to the sale of the home and the release of certain funds.

On the contested issue of temporary spousal support, the court found that the applicant, who earns $157,000 annually and recently completed her Ph.D., did not establish a prima facie case for either compensatory or non-compensatory support.

The motion for temporary spousal support was dismissed.

The appellant, Shirmati Singh, appealed an order striking her pleadings for non-compliance with previous orders to pay occupation rent, which led to a default judgment for possession of a home.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no error in the motion judge's initial decision.

However, during the appeal hearing, the appellant's representative offered to pay the outstanding arrears.

The court made a conditional order, allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders striking pleadings and granting default judgment, provided the arrears were paid.

The payment was made, and the court determined that striking the pleadings was no longer a proportionate response given the removal of prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $160,862 following motions for interim child and spousal support.

The court found that while success on the motions was divided, the respondent and co-respondents had behaved unreasonably, justifying a costs award in favour of the applicant.

However, the court found the applicant's claimed costs to be excessive, disproportionate, and manifestly unreasonable, noting the unnecessary duplication of effort by two counsel.

The court reduced the costs award significantly, ordering the respondent to pay $40,500 and the co-respondents to pay $5,000.

The applicant's motion for an advance equalization payment or interim costs was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $11,735.55 on a full recovery basis or $7,895.87 on a partial recovery basis.

The applicant argued costs should be left to the trial judge and cited limited ability to pay.

The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable for bringing the same motion that had been previously dismissed without correcting evidentiary deficiencies.

The respondent had also made a valid offer to settle.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $8,500 to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The respondent claimed he was laid off and had no income, despite a history of funding a lavish lifestyle through unreported cash from his family's tax-preparation business.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed, imputed his income at $209,355, and ordered interim child support of $2,789 per month and spousal support of $2,769 per month.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

The applicant wife sought leave to bring a motion for an advance equalization payment of $100,000 or interim disbursements of $100,000 to fund expert reports and legal fees.

A nearly identical motion had been dismissed by another judge six weeks prior due to a deficient evidentiary record.

The court found that the wife failed to meet the higher burden of showing a change in circumstances or providing the necessary factual foundation to support the revived motion.

The motion for leave was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking an order that the respondent husband provide dental practice appraisals to their jointly retained valuation expert, and for a $100,000 advance equalization payment or interim costs.

The court granted the request for the appraisals, finding the expert's request reasonable and necessary to properly value the respondent's dental practices.

However, the court dismissed the request for a further advance equalization payment, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic chance that the advance would not exceed the ultimate equalization amount, and failed to provide sufficient evidence of her need for the funds or the estimated future litigation costs.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a written offer to settle made by the respondent.

During a settlement meeting, the respondent orally stated the offer was 'no longer on the table', but the applicant subsequently accepted the offer in writing before the respondent withdrew it in writing.

The court held that under the Family Law Rules and contract law, an oral pronouncement cannot displace a written offer to settle.

The court found no clear injustice in enforcing the settlement and ordered that the offer to settle is enforceable.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to reduce child and spousal support, claiming a 42% income reduction due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother opposed.

The court, after reviewing additional evidence, determined the motion was not urgent.

The judge noted the respondent's controlling share in his company, lack of detailed evidence for alleged rental income loss, and existing savings, emphasizing that he was not in arrears.

The court dismissed the motion, stating that limited judicial resources during the pandemic must be reserved for truly urgent cases and that the motion sought to determine ultimate trial issues.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

This endorsement arises from an urgent case conference concerning a father's access to the parties' 1.5-year-old child during the COVID-19 emergency.

Following judicial recommendations and negotiations, the parties consented to an order defining the child's time with the father.

The court emphasized the immediate enforceability of the order without formal entry due to the emergency, and directed a future case conference for non-parenting issues.

During the COVID-19 suspension of court operations, the court issued directions for a case conference concerning access to the parties' child.

This followed an urgent motion where the respondent mother was found in breach of a prior consent access order.

The endorsement outlines specific procedural directions for the conference, including electronic filing and a restricted focus on access, and declares these directions to be an immediately operative and enforceable order.