Eric D. Freedman

The appellant, Domarina Malek, appealed a Superior Court order that enforced a settlement agreement and dismissed her claim, denying her request for an adjournment.

Malek, who became self-represented after her counsel withdrew, argued she was under duress and mentally incapacitated when agreeing to the settlement.

The motion judge denied the adjournment, citing the long-standing litigation and Malek's failure to secure new counsel or provide medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's denial of the adjournment was a reasonable exercise of discretion, given the contextual factors including the duration of the litigation, lack of explanation for not retaining new counsel, absence of medical evidence, and failure to attend a pre-trial.

The moving non-party, Mohsen, brought a motion within a family law proceeding for the release of funds held in trust from the sale of a property he jointly owned with the respondent husband.

The applicant wife and respondent mother-in-law opposed the release, seeking preservation of the funds.

The court found that issue estoppel applied, as a prior order had already determined Mohsen was entitled to his share of the proceeds.

The court further held that Mohsen was not bound by a prior oral agreement to sell his share for a fixed amount, as that agreement had been repudiated, and that he was not liable for a second mortgage on the property.

The court ordered $144,185.13 to be released to Mohsen.

This was an uncontested trial where the applicant sought orders for equalization, lump sum spousal support, occupation rent, and costs.

The respondent failed to attend the trial, settlement conference, or trial management conference, and did not provide financial disclosure as ordered.

The court imputed income to the respondent and valued the parties' business based on available evidence and adverse inferences.

The applicant was awarded a significant equalization payment and lump sum spousal support based on needs, but her claims for occupation rent and specific enforcement orders (extension of Certificate of Pending Litigation, direct payment from matrimonial home sale proceeds) were dismissed.

Full indemnity costs were awarded against the respondent due to his conduct.

The defendants moved to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) granted ex parte to the plaintiff.

The CPL was registered on title to a property owned by the defendants.

The plaintiff's underlying claim alleged that the defendants fraudulently replaced his stepfather's will to divert estate proceeds.

The plaintiff sought the CPL because the property was the only known asset to satisfy a potential judgment.

The court granted the motion and discharged the CPL, holding that a CPL requires the proceeding to involve a triable interest in the land itself, which the plaintiff conceded he did not have.

This appeal arose from a family dispute where the appellant, Kakouli Poka, sought to overturn a trial judgment that rejected her counterclaim for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture and granted the respondents (Tsitsos family) a monetary remedy and accounting of property.

The appellant claimed a one-third partnership in a family pizza business and contributions of $150,000, as well as significant care for the respondents' son.

The trial judge found no joint family venture, disbelieved the appellant's financial contribution and work claims, and found the care for the son insufficient to establish a venture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's evidentiary rulings regarding a struck affidavit and admitted bank statements, and her application of the law of ouster and occupation rent.

A motion to admit fresh evidence on appeal was also denied, as it failed to meet the criteria for admission.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs following successful motions related to the enforcement of a Consent and Minutes of Settlement for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed, arguing her actions were not in bad faith and she lacked the financial means to pay.

The court found the Respondent's behaviour unreasonable, particularly her attempts to renegotiate or set aside the settlement and her persistence in positions already dismissed.

While not constituting bad faith, her conduct warranted a costs award.

The Applicant was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, reduced by 10 hours due to issues with his counsel's drafting of the consent order.

The total award of $34,394 was ordered to be paid from the Respondent's share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought a vesting order for the matrimonial home to ensure its sale, following the respondent's initial non-compliance with an order to sign a listing agreement.

The court dismissed the vesting order motion, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria under s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act and the Norris test, as there was no underlying claim to ownership or payment order.

Despite the dismissal of the vesting order, the respondent was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs to the applicant due to her unreasonable conduct in initially refusing to sign the listing agreement.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were unsuccessful in setting aside a conveyance of the family home, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued no costs should be awarded or that the Estate should pay.

The court awarded the successful defendant grandson $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, noting the plaintiffs chose to proceed to trial after discovery.

The self-represented defendant was awarded no costs due to lack of documentation.

The request for a non-party costs order against the Estate was dismissed.

The plaintiff by counterclaim sought a 30‑day extension to file costs submissions following an earlier endorsement relating to a motion.

Counsel for certain responding parties took no position, while another responding party consented to the request.

The court granted the requested extension and set deadlines for both the delivery of the applicant’s costs submissions and any responding reply submissions.

The court also directed the parties to advise if the costs issue was resolved between them.