Elliot Seth Birnboim

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the affidavit evidence from both parties to be highly contradictory on fundamental issues, including the children's primary residence, payment of expenses, and the parties' respective roles in the family business.

Given the irreconcilable evidence, the need for credibility findings, and an imminent trial scheduled in three months, the court dismissed the motion and reserved costs to the trial judge.

Following a motion for interim child support where the respondent father was partially successful, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought $8,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the applicant mother sought $1,500 or that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but reduced the quantum due to divided success and the fact that his offer to settle was not more favourable than the result.

The respondent was awarded $3,500 in costs.

The respondent father brought a motion for interim child support, including retroactive support for a period when he had primary care of the children after restricting the applicant mother's parenting time due to her impaired driving arrest.

The mother opposed the retroactive claim, arguing it would reward the father's unilateral self-help, and questioned his ongoing entitlement due to his fluctuating self-employment income.

The court granted retroactive support effective from the date the father gave formal notice of his claim, finding that the children should not be penalized for the father's conduct.

Ongoing offset support and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses were also ordered based on the parties' 2021 stated incomes.

The appellant, 2088556 Ontario Inc., appealed a trial judgment that ordered specific performance and an abatement in favour of the respondent, M & M Homes Inc., regarding an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for commercial land.

The appellant had failed to provide required services by a specified deadline, leading to the respondent suing for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision on specific performance, the abatement, the discretionary dismissal of the appellant's motion to amend pleadings, and rejecting claims of bias and the appeal of full indemnity costs.

The Applicant mother sought a temporary parenting order to resume a fixed parenting schedule, including overnight time, after two impaired driving incidents with children in the car.

The Respondent father had largely withheld the children due to safety concerns related to her alcohol abuse.

The court considered the children's best interests, the status quo, and the mother's efforts towards sobriety.

The court granted a modified parenting schedule with overnight access but imposed strict conditions, including supervision by the maternal grandfather for two months and mandatory use of the Soberlink Alcohol Monitoring System.

Various creditors of 1671379 Ontario Inc. and Manuel Elkind brought motions to determine priority status for garnishment payments owed by the City of St. Catharines and Region of Niagara under a Brownfield Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program Agreement (BTIG).

The primary dispute was between MCAP Financial Corporation, which held a registered and perfected security interest under the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA), and Assignment Credit Corp. (ACC), which claimed priority based on an assignment of a prior judgment.

The court found that MCAP's security interest, including the proceeds of the BTIG, maintained its priority status despite being reduced to a shortfall judgment.

The court dismissed ACC's claim for priority, finding that its assigned interest was subject to MCAP's prior perfected security and that ACC's claim should be limited to $400,000 as per a "Side Deal" in a previous endorsement.

The applicant sought to add two non-parties, Francis Montour and Greg Hill, to a family law proceeding and compel their questioning, asserting their relevance to a trust claim over "on reserve" properties and a tobacco farming business.

The respondent and proposed added parties opposed.

The court, applying Family Law Rules 7(5) and 20(5), found that the dispute between the primary parties could be resolved without adding the non-parties and that the motion for questioning was premature as the applicant had not exhausted other disclosure methods.

The applicant's motion was dismissed.

The moving party defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide particulars of its allegations of misrepresentation and intent, and to produce documents for inspection.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants already had the information and documents.

The court granted the motion in part, finding that the statement of claim did not satisfy the elevated level of particularity required under Rule 25.06(8) for pleadings of misrepresentation.

The court ordered the plaintiff to provide certain particulars and to produce the referenced documents for inspection.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to set a timetable for a potential motion to remove their counsel, finding it premature.

The court also granted the plaintiff's motion to validate service on one of the defendants.

The appellant, 2460907 Ontario Inc., appealed an order striking its claim for pure economic loss against the respondent, 1521476 Ontario Inc. The claim arose from the respondent's re-entry of premises leased to a third party, 2456787 Ontario Inc., where the appellant intended to operate a restaurant.

The appellant claimed a possessory or proprietary interest in the premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant lacked such an interest because the respondent had not consented to an assignment of the lease.

Consequently, no duty of care could arise to support a claim for pure economic loss.

The court distinguished the case from relational economic loss precedents due to the absence of any direct relationship between the appellant and respondent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the applicant, including business records, bank statements, and property valuations.

The applicant argued she did not keep business records after 2015 because she was exempt from filing income tax returns under the Indian Act.

The court granted the motion, holding that while the applicant may not have to keep records for tax purposes, she is still obligated to produce proper accounting records and valuations for the family law proceeding to determine income and property division.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial judge's determinations regarding property and spousal support issues following a 21-day trial.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility assessments, emphasizing the high standard of deference owed to such findings in family law cases.

The appellant's arguments were largely rejected as an attempt to retry the case.

While a clerical error in the equalization payment was corrected in the appellant's favour, the appeal was otherwise dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff's action initially appeared before a judge for a summary judgment motion in the Central West Region.

The judge noted that the action fit within the definition of a class action currently being case managed in the Southwest Region, and initiated a motion to transfer the action to avoid inconsistent verdicts and promote litigation economy.

The Regional Senior Justice considered the relevant rules and statutory provisions, and ordered the proceeding transferred to the Southwest Region to be case managed with the class action, maintaining the temporary stay previously ordered.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a timetable in a collection action after the defendants failed to respond to a proposed discovery plan.

The motion was ultimately resolved on consent, but the plaintiff sought costs due to the defendants' unresponsiveness.

The court found that the defendants' failure to respond in a timely manner unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $2,700.

The plaintiff, MDG Newmarket Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce minutes of settlement against the defendant, Pierre Pascal, related to a rental contract for HVAC equipment.

Mr. Pascal counterclaimed, alleging misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and statutory breaches, including under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

The court noted an ongoing class action against MDG involving similar contracts.

The court temporarily stayed MDG's action and referred the matter to the Regional Senior Judge in the Southwest Region to determine if it should be transferred or considered part of the class action, citing concerns about inconsistent findings and judicial efficiency.

Steve (Uziel) Igel sought leave to intervene as an added party in an action (the "Andrews Action") commenced by Jeffrey Feldberg against David Andrews and his companies.

The Andrews Action's allegations against Andrews are based on alleged misconduct attributed to Igel, which are also central to a separate, ongoing "Igel Action" between Igel and Feldberg.

Igel sought to intervene under Rule 13.01, arguing common questions of law/fact, reputational interest, and potential adverse effects from a judgment, particularly a pending Rule 21 motion to strike the Andrews Action as an abuse of process.

The court found Igel satisfied the threshold requirements for intervention.

The court granted Igel leave to intervene in the Rule 21 motion, finding he could make a useful contribution, but dismissed his request to be added as a full party to the entire Andrews Action as premature, subject to revisiting after the Rule 21 motion.

Feldberg also brought a successful motion to strike certain paragraphs and exhibits from an affidavit based on settlement privilege.

Costs were awarded.

The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful distraint under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff sought damages for relational economic loss, arguing it had a possessory or proprietary interest in restaurant equipment distrained by the defendant landlord from a previous tenant.

The court found that because the defendant had withheld consent to assign the lease to the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not establish a possessory or proprietary interest in the chattels.

The motion was allowed and the claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

During a case conference in a joint venture dispute, the parties agreed that the plaintiff's counsel was in a conflict of interest and should be removed as solicitor of record for a jointly-owned corporation in a related solicitor's negligence action.

The court granted the order removing counsel and directed that the corporation would have 30 days to retain new counsel or seek leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The court deferred the defendants' request for immediate production of the complete solicitor's file until new counsel is retained.

The Proposal Trustee brought a motion for court approval of the amended joint proposal of Artiva Inc. and Livewell Foods Canada Inc. under s. 58 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and a related plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The proposal was supported by the majority of creditors, but opposed by a dissenting creditor who sought an adjournment due to late delivery of proofs of claim.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the time to challenge claims for voting purposes had expired.

The court approved the proposal and arrangement, finding them viable, made in good faith, and likely to generate a superior recovery for creditors than bankruptcy.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' common employer claim, strike certain allegations as scandalous, and sever the plaintiffs' wrongful dismissal claims.

The court found that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded facts supporting the common employer claim, including integrated operations and common control.

The court also held that allegations of the defendants diverting funds were relevant to the common employer analysis and not scandalous.

Finally, the court refused to sever the claims, finding that a joint trial on the common employer issue would be more efficient and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendants' motions were dismissed.

The applicant wife brought a motion to find the respondent husband in breach of previous child support, spousal support, and costs orders, and to strike his pleadings.

The husband had accumulated over $52,000 in arrears and claimed impecuniosity due to the pandemic, despite maintaining his pre-separation lifestyle.

The court found the husband in breach of the orders but declined to immediately strike his pleadings, instead granting him a final opportunity to pay the outstanding arrears and costs by a specified date, failing which the wife could move to strike his pleadings on all non-parenting issues.