Ella Aiaseh

The appellant challenged summary judgment dismissing his claim.

The court rejected both appellate arguments, upheld the motion judge’s credibility and documentary-evidence assessments, and found no palpable and overriding error.

The plaintiff brought an action against his former wife alleging misappropriation of joint property and claiming a resulting trust in a property located at 177 Morningview Trail.

The parties had previously entered into a Separation Agreement in Florida in 1999, which divided their assets and released all claims.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations of misappropriation or his claim to an interest in the property.

The documentary evidence confirmed the defendant as the sole beneficial owner of the property, and the plaintiff failed to produce any written agreement to the contrary as required by the Statute of Frauds.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant father appealed a parenting variation order arising from a motion to change under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The appeal challenged the continuation of sole decision-making with the mother, limits on the father’s proactive contact with the child’s service providers, the exchange location, the refusal of video calls, the adjournment of the SIN issue, and the timing of compliance with a name-change term.

The court held that the applicable standard was palpable and overriding error and found that the motion judge had conducted the required fresh best-interests inquiry after a conceded material change in circumstances.

The evidentiary record supported findings of high parental conflict, controlling behaviour, and excessive communications with providers that risked disrupting care for a medically vulnerable child.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order regarding retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

He argued the motion judge erred by refusing to hear his cross-motion for table support, finding one child was not a dependent while taking part-time virtual courses, and awarding costs based on bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the dependency finding and upholding the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding the cross-motion.

The court also denied leave to appeal costs, noting the bad faith finding was justified by the father's failure to disclose income increases.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 4, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant sought full recovery or substantial indemnity costs following a family law decision.

The respondents sought full recovery costs or no costs, citing limited means and divided success.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful despite divided success on an access order.

Taking into account the financial resources of one respondent and the limited role of the other, the court awarded the applicant $5,000 in inclusive costs, apportioned between the two respondents.

The Applicant and Respondent A. S. Tsinoglou brought cross-motions concerning interim child support, spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim access, and return of belongings.

The court addressed these issues prior to a case conference due to urgency and hardship.

The court found Santiago and Alejandra to be children of the marriage for interim child support purposes, awarded interim child and spousal support to the Applicant, and granted her exclusive possession of the matrimonial home (a leasehold interest) and maintenance payments from A. S. Tsinoglou.

Interim access was granted to A. S. Tsinoglou for Christian, and he was permitted to retrieve belongings.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of approximately $75,000 following three motions in a family law proceeding.

The motions primarily dealt with the respondent's failure to provide financial disclosure regarding his corporate interests and the sale of properties.

The court found that the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent had acted unreasonably by repeatedly failing to comply with disclosure orders.

However, the court determined that the applicant's claimed costs were disproportionate to the work required.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $43,200, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants, the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle, sought access to the respondent's two children following the death of their mother.

The respondent opposed the application and sought a restraining order, citing the children's trauma and the therapist's recommendation against contact with the maternal family.

After a case conference where the court expressed concerns about the merits of the application, the applicants withdrew their application and consented to the restraining order.

The only remaining issue was costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, finding that the applicants had prematurely commenced the court proceeding without waiting for therapeutic reports and had proceeded unreasonably despite clear indications from the respondent's counsel about the children's emotional state and the legal test regarding parental autonomy in grandparent access cases.