Elena Elnaz Mazinani

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking temporary custody, permission to travel with children, temporary child and spousal support, orders regarding the matrimonial home (joint ownership, sale, exclusive possession), and interim disbursements.

The court granted temporary sole custody to the mother, with consultation on major decisions.

It allowed the mother to retain passports and travel with notice, finding the father's flight risk concerns speculative.

The court imputed an income of $225,000 per annum to the father for child support purposes, ordering $2,867 per month, commencing July 1, 2016, but declined retroactivity.

It ordered proportionate sharing of Toronto Montessori expenses for both children but denied other s.7 expenses (summer camp, drawing, piano lessons).

The parties were declared joint owners of the matrimonial home, but the conditional request for sale was withdrawn.

The mother was granted interim exclusive possession.

Spousal support was not ordered at this time, as the father's existing payments for the matrimonial home satisfied the mother's current need.

The father was ordered to pay $25,000 in interim disbursements and to retain a business valuator for his business interests and income, with a further $25,000 payment if he failed to comply.

The moving party sought to set aside an order quashing his appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

He argued that the Board's consent order was invalid because his former counsel forced him to accept the settlement under duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the counsel's firm legal advice did not amount to duress at law and that there was no unfairness in the prior proceedings.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his applications as vexatious and finding he had abandoned the rental unit before the landlord changed the locks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that its jurisdiction is limited to questions of law under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, and the tenant failed to identify any error of law.

The Board had ample evidence to conclude the applications were vexatious and to reject the tenant's credibility regarding alleged rent payments.

On a motion in a family proceeding, the moving party sought removal of opposing counsel based on a disqualifying conflict of interest.

A paralegal associated with opposing counsel had previously assisted the moving party while he was self-represented by preparing his answer, financial statement, and case conference brief, and had received confidential information about litigation strategy, finances, and family circumstances.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's conflict framework, the court held that the responding party and her counsel failed to show that formal policies or effective screening measures existed to make disclosure impossible or highly unlikely.

Undertakings from the paralegal were insufficient, particularly in a very small practice.

The motion was granted and counsel was removed as solicitor of record.

Following a 22-year marriage, the applicant sought spousal support as the sole issue at trial.

The court found that the applicant had been financially dependent during the marriage and continued to suffer economic disadvantage arising from it.

Although the timing of the respondent's bankruptcy and work cessation raised suspicion, the court accepted the medical evidence that he was currently unable to work and based his income on actual earnings, employment insurance, and long-term disability benefits.

The court imputed annual income of $30,000 to the applicant, applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, rescinded the prior interim order, and made a final support order with stepped amounts for 2013, 2014, and ongoing from 2015.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial decision in a child support matter.

The applicant sought full recovery of costs at $4,542.60, while the respondent proposed costs of $1,800 payable at $50 per month.

The applicant had made a settlement offer that complied with the Family Law Rules and obtained a judgment more favourable than the offer.

The court awarded costs of $3,390 total, comprising partial indemnity costs before the settlement offer date and full recovery costs thereafter, with disbursements and HST included.

The respondent was ordered to repay at $150 per month commencing October 1, 2013.

The applicant mother sought child support for two children (ages 7 and 8) and requested that the respondent father's income be imputed at $52,000 per annum, with support retroactive to January 1, 2010, and a contribution to special expenses starting January 1, 2013.

The respondent father proposed an imputed income of $26,654 with support beginning April 1, 2010.

The court found the father's evidence evasive, vague, contradictory and self-serving, and determined that he had under-reported his income to Revenue Canada.

Based on lifestyle analysis and customer volume calculations, the court imputed net income of $37,000 per annum and grossed it up to $43,935 per annum for support purposes.

The court ordered child support of $664 per month (April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011) and $646 per month (January 1, 2012 onwards), plus $90 per month for special expenses (childcare and camp) starting January 1, 2013.

Arrears were fixed at $18,989 as of June 30, 2013, to be repaid at $150 per month.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing an action as abandoned, extend time for service of the statement of claim, and amend the claim to include a claim for accident benefits.

The court applied the contextual approach outlined by the Court of Appeal regarding Rule 37.14 motions and considered factors such as explanation for delay, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay in serving the claim was minimal and attributable to the plaintiff being unrepresented while attempting to retain counsel.

The plaintiff did not receive the dismissal notice due to a court addressing error and moved promptly once aware of the dismissal.

As no actual prejudice to the defendants was demonstrated, the registrar’s dismissal order was set aside and the amendment permitted.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike portions of the plaintiff’s statement of claim that referenced settlement discussions and an offer made during negotiations concerning the early termination of a commercial lease.

The court considered whether the impugned paragraphs disclosed privileged settlement communications.

It held that references to settlement offers or negotiations are generally improper in pleadings because such communications are privileged and inadmissible.

While statements merely describing the landlord’s intention to demolish the building were permissible, references to an offer contained in counsel’s letter and the tenant’s rejection of that offer constituted settlement communications.

The court ordered the offending portions struck while leaving the remainder of the pleading intact.