Elena Elnaz Mazinani

The accused was charged with possession, accessing, and distribution of child pornography.

The defence brought a renewed section 11(b) Charter application to stay proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The Crown disclosed a critical 25-page expert technical crime report only 20 months after arrest and less than two months before trial, necessitating an adjournment.

The court found the Crown substantially responsible for the delay, which exceeded the Jordan guideline threshold, and granted the stay of proceedings.

This ruling addresses endorsements from August 25 and 26, 2016, and associated costs, as well as the father's cross-motion regarding payment of certain household expenses.

The court varied a previous order concerning matrimonial home expenses, setting child support, and making no order for spousal support or mortgage payments, but requiring the husband to continue home insurance and the mother to pay the mobile account.

The court also addressed costs, noting divided success but criticizing the mother's unilateral conduct in arranging counselling for the child without notice to the father.

The wife was ordered to pay the husband $1,500 in fixed costs from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The applicant sought an increase in spousal support and leave to amend her application to include a claim for an Islamic Marriage Contract (MEHR).

The respondent sought a reduction in spousal support and production of documents.

The court granted mutual disclosure orders, permitted the applicant to amend her claim for MEHR, and increased spousal support from $1,000 to $1,500 per month, retroactive to October 1, 2015.

The court declined to deviate from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) range despite the respondent's debt, finding that an award at the low end of the range could accommodate the circumstances.

The applicant mother sought an order to dispense with the respondent father's consent to sell their jointly owned residence and to strike his pleadings.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to dispense with the mother's consent to sell the residence, to have the mother found in contempt, and to vary or set aside an order that had denied him the right to be heard.

The court varied the order to allow the father to be heard, provided detailed directions for the sale of the matrimonial home, including a mechanism for the father to proceed unilaterally if the mother failed to cooperate.

The court also varied the child access order to introduce gradual overnight access for the father, noting the mother's unilateral actions regarding the child's healthcare and lack of support for the father-child relationship.

The mother's motion to strike pleadings was dismissed, and the contempt motions were adjourned sine die.

This family law trial addressed child support, retroactive child support, and equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, calculated arrears, and established ongoing child support.

Regarding net family property, the court determined the value of a Cuban property to be nil and valued a business (Mojito’s House Ltd.) based on its actual sale price, dismissing allegations of a non-arm's length transaction.

Claims for unequal division of the matrimonial home were dismissed, and the court declined to make orders regarding household contents and jewellery due to lack of evidence and jurisdiction to distribute property in specie.

Ultimately, both parties' net family property was deemed nil, and their equalization claims were dismissed.

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.

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.