Enio Zeppieri

The responding party was previously found in contempt for failing to secure his equalization and spousal support obligations via life insurance and pension designation for 25 years.

At the sentencing hearing, the court found he had not purged his contempt and continued to make excuses.

The court ordered a penalty of $75,000 enforceable by a Support Deduction Order, a fine of $5,000, directed the release of estate funds held in Australia, and stayed his pending motion to change spousal support until the contempt is purged.

The moving party (former wife) brought a motion for contempt against the responding party (former husband) for failing to secure his equalization and spousal support obligations via life insurance and his pension, as ordered in 1998 and 2000.

The responding party argued the equalization obligation was extinguished by his 2000 assignment in bankruptcy.

The court found that because the responding party failed to comply with his conditional discharge order and the trustee was discharged in 2005, the bankruptcy stay was lifted and the equalization obligation remained enforceable.

Applying the three-part test for civil contempt, the court found the responding party intentionally breached clear and unequivocal court orders and declared him in contempt, ordering him to secure the obligations within 30 days to purge the contempt prior to a sentencing hearing.

The appellants commenced an action against the respondent, a personal injury lawyer, for damages arising from the non-payment of referral fees allegedly owed under an oral contract spanning 1984 to 2018.

The appellants claimed entitlement to 10% of gross settlements or awards on over 130 referred lawsuits.

The respondent denied the existence of any contract and brought a summary judgment motion relying on denial of contract, alleged illegality, and limitation defences.

The motion judge found genuine issues requiring trial regarding contract existence and legality but granted partial summary judgment on limitation grounds, dismissing claims for lawsuits settling before December 10, 2017.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in characterizing the contract and in failing to recognize that the cause of action did not arise until the relationship ended in 2018.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly determined that the cause of action accrued when each referred lawsuit settled and payment was not made, regardless of whether the full extent of damages was known.

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract executed in St. Lucia the day before the parties' wedding.

The court determined that Ontario law applied to the contract.

Although the contract met the formal requirements of the Family Law Act, the court found grounds to set it aside under section 56(4).

The respondent failed to disclose significant assets, including his pension and real property, the applicant did not understand the nature or consequences of the contract, and she signed it under duress related to her immigration status.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the agreement due to substantial unfairness in the bargaining process.

The applicant father sought full indemnity costs from the respondent mother following a successful motion where the mother was found to have acted in bad faith by unilaterally changing the children's school and residence in breach of a separation agreement.

The court reviewed the legal framework for costs, particularly Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules regarding bad faith.

The court found the mother's actions, including concealing information, deceiving the father and the school principal, and breaching the agreement, constituted bad faith.

The court awarded the father full recovery costs of $21,319.45, emphasizing that such an order was necessary to condemn and discourage the mother's self-help behaviour.

The applicant father sought orders to prevent the respondent mother from unilaterally changing the children's school and residence, contrary to a separation agreement providing for joint decision-making.

The mother had sold her home, purchased a new one further away, and enrolled the children in a new Christian school without the father's consent or prior discussion, despite the children previously attending a Catholic school and the agreement stipulating joint educational decisions.

The court emphasized strong disapproval of self-help remedies in family law, finding the mother's actions detrimental to the children's best interests and a breach of the separation agreement.

The court ordered the children to remain in their current Catholic school and for their school-week residence to be no further than 55 km from the school, maintaining the status quo pending trial.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $41,597.02 in statutory accident benefits paid to the respondent, alleging she fraudulently misrepresented her inability to work and need for attendant care.

The respondent, a personal support worker, had signed a statutory declaration and pleadings in a separate lawsuit admitting she provided and was paid for personal care services to a third party during the same period she received income replacement and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence at the hearing lacked credibility and concluded she willfully misrepresented her ability to earn an income and her need for attendant care.

The respondent was ordered to repay $23,600 in income replacement benefits and $5,970.92 in attendant care benefits, plus interest, but was not required to repay medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer's request for costs was denied.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for default judgment against the defendants in a Simplified Procedure action regarding a defaulted promissory note.

The court declined to grant the motion due to several deficiencies in the motion record, including ambiguity regarding service, the omission of the Noting in Default and Statement of Claim, and the improper reliance on hearsay evidence from the plaintiffs' lawyer on central issues.

The plaintiffs were directed to address the deficiencies and re-file the motion.

The defendant sought an urgent injunction to prevent the sale of a mortgaged property by the plaintiffs under a power of sale.

The defendant argued the property was unique, the notice of sale was deficient, and payments were not properly credited.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the property was not unique, the notice of sale was not void due to minor irregularities, and the balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, who had a binding agreement of purchase and sale.

This was a standalone costs decision arising from a partial summary judgment motion under the Partition Act and a related application authorizing sale of one of three disputed properties.

The court declined to award costs on the partition motion, holding that each sibling should bear their own costs in light of their conduct, the interlocutory nature of the dispute, and unresolved merits in the larger litigation.

The court awarded the parents full indemnity costs on their successful application because they had been drawn into a dispute in which they played no part and should not have had to sue their own children to disengage from title.

The unsuccessful daughter was ordered to pay $36,634.81 within 45 days, without awaiting the sale proceeds.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed his motion to strike the respondent's claim as statute-barred and struck his statement of defence.

The dispute involved a $16,000 promissory note for a tractor purchase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's application to introduce fresh evidence.

However, the court found the Deputy Judge made a palpable and overriding error by failing to explain how conflicting evidence regarding the date of the parties' last contact was resolved, which was crucial for determining when a demand was made under the Limitations Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to Small Claims Court for trial.

A co-owner brought a partial summary judgment motion under the Partition Act seeking sale of three jointly held investment properties and payment of the proceeds into court.

The responding co-owner opposed the motion, arguing that a sale was inconsistent with the parties’ long‑term investment plan, that outstanding accounting claims and counterclaims should be resolved first, and that the moving party’s conduct was malicious and oppressive.

The court held that a co-owner has a prima facie right to partition or sale unless the opposing party establishes exceptional circumstances such as malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct.

Disputes over accounting, alleged debts, and disappointment in future investment plans were insufficient to displace that right.

The motion and a related application by trustees holding title to one property were granted, ordering the sale of the properties.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim for specific performance requiring the transfer of property pursuant to a first right of refusal and an agreement of purchase and sale.

They also sought leave to appeal the costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings that there was no first right of refusal and that the agreement of purchase and sale was unenforceable due to the improbability of obtaining severance.

Leave to appeal costs was also refused.

Adult children challenged their mother’s 2005 will, powers of attorney, and subsequent transfers of property to another sibling, alleging incapacity, undue influence, and misuse of assets.

The court held that the mother had testamentary capacity in 2005 and validly executed the will and powers of attorney.

However, by 2008 she lacked capacity to transfer her home to the respondent son, and that transfer was declared void due to incapacity and undue influence.

The court found she presently lacked capacity to manage property, personal care, grant powers of attorney, or make a will.

Although the 2005 powers of attorney were valid, the court removed the attorney due to misconduct and appointed two other sons as guardians of her person and property.

The plaintiffs brought a motion concerning undertakings, refusals, and questions taken under advisement arising from examinations for discovery.

The court reviewed disputed undertakings and refusals involving several witnesses and determined which questions were relevant and required answers.

Many undertakings and refusals were ordered to be answered where the information was relevant and no sufficient basis for commercial sensitivity or irrelevance had been established.

Some requests were found overly broad or premature and were not required at that stage.

The plaintiffs were found substantially successful and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s action after trial, the defendant sought costs relying on a pre‑trial offer to settle served under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The offer proposed payment between $25,000 and $10,000 depending on the timing of acceptance, but it was not accepted.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the offer was merely a nuisance offer and found it constituted a genuine attempt to compromise the dispute.

Applying the principles governing Rule 49 offers where the result at trial is more favourable to the offeror, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage sued the defendant umbrella network for breach of contract, breach of good faith, and an accounting of contingent profit commissions following the termination of their brokerage agreement.

The court found that the defendant terminated the agreement in accordance with the 90-day notice provision and acted in good faith, causing no proven financial loss to the plaintiff.

The court also dismissed the claim for an accounting, holding that the plaintiff was improperly seeking a 'fishing expedition' to discover if a loss occurred rather than quantifying a known loss.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sexual harassment and disability discrimination requested interim orders for document production and extensions of time.

The Tribunal ordered the organizational respondent to transcribe the illegible handwritten notes of its investigator at its own cost, finding that the purpose of pre-hearing disclosure would be defeated if documents relied upon were illegible.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's requests for extensions of time to file medical records and other documents, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant's request for production of jurisprudence referred to by the investigator was denied as speculative.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding a prescriptive easement over disputed lands.

The trial judge found that the previous owners did not give permission or a license for the use of the lands, and any agreement related only to a fence.

Alternatively, if permission was given, it was not renewed.

The Court of Appeal found evidence to support these findings and saw no basis to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Tarion Warranty Corporation appealed a Tribunal decision regarding the registration of a builder, Riva's Emporium Ltd. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion that Tarion unreasonably extended its requirements for financial information was unreasonable.

The Court also held that the Tribunal failed to recognize the seriousness of the builder's past breaches, resulting in the imposition of unreasonable, redundant, and ultra vires conditions for registration.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a full hearing.