Elena Elnaz Mazinani

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 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 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.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a business partnership to purchase and develop a property.

The defendant unilaterally terminated the partnership and sold the property.

Following this, the parties signed "Minutes of Protocol" agreeing to compensate the plaintiff $240,000 for expenses, time, and lost profits.

The court found the Minutes of Protocol to be a valid contract.

It determined that the $240,000 was intended to cover expenses and future loss, but also agreed that expenses already compensated by the defendant should be deducted.

The plaintiff was ultimately awarded $82,425 after deducting a portion of the construction loan that the plaintiff had received but the defendant subsequently repaid.

The plaintiff commercial tenant sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to regain possession of commercial premises and recover seized equipment after being evicted by the defendant landlord.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide a meaningful undertaking as to damages, did not demonstrate a serious issue to be tried as the landlord had lawfully terminated the tenancy for non-payment of rent and non-compliance with insurance requirements, and did not establish irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favored the landlord.

The applicant sought costs following a 13-day family law trial.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party on several key issues, including the date of cohabitation, the validity of the Maher, and the Kevin Drive property.

The respondent's conduct regarding the Kevin Drive property, which involved transferring and selling it without the applicant's knowledge or consent, was deemed bad faith and a clear attempt to defraud the applicant of her rightful equalization payment.

While none of the parties' offers to settle met the criteria under Family Law Rule 18(14) for special consideration, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs, emphasizing the need to deter such egregious conduct, while still applying principles of fairness and reasonableness.

The respondent's claim for costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for recovery of a $200,000 deposit paid for the purchase of a property at 291 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto.

The property was zoned R4 Az4 (residential with permitted office use) and had been used as commercial office space by the respondent.

The motion judge dismissed claims of negligent misrepresentation regarding zoning, found no breach of the agreement of purchase and sale by the respondent, determined the respondent was ready, willing and able to close, and found the appellant's anticipatory breach entitled the respondent to retain the deposit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision on all grounds.

These supplementary reasons address the costs arising from two motions where Neda Afshar and Arman Sabet successfully sought to remove Brian Sherman as lawyer of record for Mehdi Moradi, and Ms. Afshar also obtained leave to amend her statement of claim.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Ms. Afshar ($24,000.00) and Mr. Sabet ($6,000.00), payable by Mr. Moradi.

The court declined to award elevated costs or costs against Mr. Sherman personally, finding no reprehensible conduct by Mr. Moradi or Mr. Sherman in opposing the motions.

Neda Afshar and Arman Sabet brought motions to remove Brian Sherman as lawyer of record for Mehdi Moradi due to conflict of interest and breach of duty of loyalty, stemming from a joint retainer in a real estate action.

Ms. Afshar also sought leave to amend her statement of claim and be added as a defendant.

Mr. Sabet sought production of his file.

The court found that Mr. Sherman had received confidential information and was acting against former clients in the same matter, violating the duty of loyalty.

The motions to remove counsel and grant leave to amend the statement of claim were granted.

The request for file production was dismissed as the material had largely been produced.

The court heard three motions for summary judgment in two related actions concerning second and third mortgages on a property.

The defendant, Hassan Talani, challenged the validity of these mortgages, claiming the property was a matrimonial home requiring spousal consent and that prior mortgages prohibited subsequent encumbrances.

He also counterclaimed against his real estate lawyer, Laman Meshadiyeva, alleging negligence and exploitation of a gambling addiction.

The court rejected Talani's arguments, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the matrimonial home status or the validity of the mortgages.

The court also dismissed Talani's counterclaim against Meshadiyeva due to lack of evidence.

Partial summary judgment was deemed appropriate, removing the mortgagees and lawyer from the litigation while allowing other discrete claims to proceed.

This family law trial addressed child custody, access, travel documents, divorce, imputation of income, child and spousal support, and equalization of property.

The respondent's pleadings regarding financial and property issues were struck due to non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court granted joint custody with primary residence to the applicant, established specific access terms, and ordered the parties to obtain a divorce in Ontario, refusing to recognize a prior Sri Lankan divorce obtained for deceptive purposes.

The court imputed income to the respondent, ordered significant retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, and determined equalization of property, setting off the equalization payment against support arrears.

The respondent's constructive trust claim over the matrimonial home was dismissed.