Elliot Berlin

The parties separated after an altercation that led to criminal charges against the respondent.

The central issue at trial was determining which party took approximately $405,000 in cash and precious metals from safes in the matrimonial apartment.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the applicant took the assets.

The court calculated the equalization payment and post-separation adjustments, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $233,363.02.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissed the respondent's claim for spousal support.

The plaintiff, 385277 Ontario Ltd., sought costs incurred on a contempt motion where the defendants were found to be in contempt of two previous court orders.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the importance and complexity of the matter, counsel's experience, hours spent, proportionality, and the defendants' conduct.

Given the defendants' wilful defiance of court orders and their failure to make costs submissions, the court found the plaintiff's requested costs reasonable and proportionate.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, with leave for the plaintiff to seek a top-up to substantial or full indemnity after trial.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants, who were former tenants of a farm property, from continuing an online harassment campaign against the landlord's principal.

The defendants had posted numerous YouTube videos containing threats, defamatory statements, and vulgar language aimed at coercing a settlement.

The court recognized the emerging tort of internet harassment and granted the injunction, finding that the defendants' conduct was intended to cause fear and anxiety and went beyond the bounds of decency.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a final family law order for child support, section 7 expenses, and costs by garnishing the respondent's Retirement Life Income Fund (RLIF).

The court held that under section 66(4) of the Pension Benefits Act, the amount subject to execution for support orders is limited to 50% of the money payable to the respondent in a given year.

The court ordered the respondent to elect the maximum annual withdrawal from his RLIF and direct 50% of the net amount to the applicant until the arrears and $30,000 in fixed costs are satisfied.

The applicant's request for an advance order on future section 7 expenses was dismissed.