Erika Chozik

The applicant, Vanessa Shea, sought primary care and sole decision-making for her 12-year-old daughter, Roxanna, following the sudden death of the child's father, Robin Shea.

The child had been estranged from the applicant since 2019 and was in the care of her paternal aunts.

Miriam Shea, one of the paternal aunts, brought a cross-motion to be added as a party and for temporary primary residence and decision-making authority.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding her unsuitable as a primary caregiver due to her lack of insight into the child's needs and her inability to prioritize the child's interests over her own.

The court granted the cross-motion, ordering Roxanna to reside with Miriam Shea, who was found to be a suitable and supportive caregiver, and to have day-to-day decision-making authority.

The court also declined to order immediate intensive reunification therapy, prioritizing the child's individual healing from grief.

The offender was found guilty of sexually interfering with and sexually assaulting his common-law wife's granddaughter over an eight-year period, beginning when the child was five years old.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to four years, while the defence proposed two years plus a day.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and the profound breach of trust involved.

The offender was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for sexual interference, with the sexual assault count stayed under the Kienapple principle, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

The applicant, beneficiary of his deceased father's life insurance policy, sought a declaration that the policy was valid and payable.

The respondent insurer refused the claim, alleging the deceased fraudulently misrepresented his criminal history on the application by denying any convictions in the preceding three years.

The court found the insurer failed to prove actual fraud on a balance of probabilities, as the evidence of the conviction date was unreliable and there was no proof of intent to deceive.

The policy was declared valid and binding.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion to reduce the amount of security posted to vacate a construction lien registered by the plaintiff subcontractor, and for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim for extra work was clearly inflated and lacked sufficient evidentiary support, and that the plaintiff failed to comply with contractual notice provisions.

The court reduced the lien amount to $797,636.23 and ordered the plaintiff to post $120,000 as security for costs, finding good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to pay a costs award.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant and its director for repayment of two loans and associated fees.

The court found that the fees charged on the loans amounted to effective interest rates of 150% and 180%, which exceeded the criminal rate of interest under the Criminal Code.

The court set aside the fees under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act but granted summary judgment for the principal amount of the loans.

The court also found the director personally liable as a guarantor, as she signed the promissory note without indicating she was signing solely in a corporate capacity.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, retroactive support, and security for support.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage with no children, and there was a significant income disparity between them.

The court found the wife had a needs-based entitlement to support but declined to base the quantum on the husband's anomalous 2020 income or to order a 50/50 net disposable income split.

The court imputed an income of $60,000 to the wife and based the husband's income on his 2019 earnings of $280,000, ordering interim spousal support of $5,000 per month retroactive to the date of notice.

Claims for further retroactive support were dismissed as premature pending full financial disclosure.

Following a 10-day trial on parenting issues where the respondent father was entirely successful, he sought partial indemnity costs of $350,000 plus half the costs of a section 30 assessment.

The court found that the applicant mother's conduct throughout the litigation was deplorable and unreasonable, driven by false allegations of abuse and alienating behaviours, though it fell just short of bad faith.

The court awarded the respondent his requested costs of $389,346.18, noting the amount was fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the complexity of the issues and the applicant's conduct.

The applicant sought costs following a motion where he was granted sole custody of the parties' child and the respondent's access was suspended, although his motion for contempt was dismissed.

The applicant sought $15,000 out of a total bill of $23,780.51.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, had made a favourable offer to settle, and behaved reasonably.

The court awarded the applicant $15,000 in costs, finding the amount fair, proportionate, and reasonable given the complexity and significance of the issues.

The applicant sought costs following his successful defense against the respondent's motion for financial disclosure and his successful cross-motion.

The court found the applicant behaved reasonably and met his disclosure obligations, while the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, overbroad, and akin to a fishing expedition.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $16,608.55, representing 75% of his actual costs, payable by the respondent at a rate of $1,000 per month.

The parties, who separated in 2016, sought a final order to resolve remaining issues regarding their two children, including the parenting schedule for holidays, sharing of private school tuition and other section 7 expenses, and RESP contributions.

The court ordered a fixed parenting schedule for holidays to minimize conflict, found that private school tuition was a necessary and reasonable section 7 expense to be shared equally, and ordered the applicant to pay her share of the tuition retroactive to the date of separation.

The court also ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for half of her post-separation contributions to the joint RESP.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to his persistent failure to comply with multiple court orders.

The respondent had failed to pay two previous costs awards, failed to return to arbitration, failed to pay ordered child support, and breached terms regarding overnight access.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful, deliberate, and extreme.

Concluding that no lesser remedy would suffice, the court struck the respondent's Answer and allowed the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The applicant mother sought joint custody, parallel decision-making, and equal parenting time of the parties' 10-year-old child.

The respondent father sought sole custody and decision-making responsibility, with the child spending 5 out of 14 days with the mother, along with therapeutic interventions.

The court found that the mother engaged in egregious post-separation conduct, including making unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the father, which caused emotional harm to the child and raised significant concerns of parental alienation.

Relying on expert assessments, the court concluded that the mother was unable to co-parent and that her hostility towards the father remained unresolved.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, limited the mother's parenting time to 5 out of 14 days, and ordered therapeutic supervision for the mother.

The applicant sought spousal support and property relief following a 35-year marriage.

The respondent husband, residing in Dubai, had obtained a Sharia 'talaq' divorce without notice to the applicant.

The court refused to recognize the foreign divorce under the Divorce Act, finding a lack of natural justice.

The court awarded the applicant indefinite spousal support, payable as a lump sum from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The court also found a resulting trust over properties held by the parties' daughters and vested the respondent's interest in those properties in the applicant to secure support arrears.

The moving parties (two fathers) sought full indemnity costs of approximately $75,000 following a successful motion that changed the respondent mother's parenting time to supervised access.

The court found that while the fathers were successful and presumptively entitled to costs, their claim was unreasonable and disproportionate for a one-hour motion.

The court also criticized the unnecessary and ill-conceived contempt motion brought by one of the fathers, which unnecessarily complicated the proceedings.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000, apportioned equally between the fathers.

The appellant, an unlicensed practitioner of Traditional Chinese Medicine, appealed his conviction for sexual assault against a patient.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended text message evidence regarding the evolution of their relationship and applied uneven scrutiny to his testimony compared to the complainant's.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were supported by the evidence, any misapprehension was not central to the conviction, and the scrutiny of the evidence was balanced and fair.

The applicant sought interim child support for her son from a previous relationship, interim spousal support, and orders regarding access exchanges.

The court found a prima facie case that the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the stepson and ordered him to pay full Guidelines child support for all three children.

The court also found the applicant entitled to interim spousal support based on need and compensatory grounds.

Due to conflict involving the respondent's mother, access exchanges were ordered to occur at a neutral location, with adjusted times for winter driving conditions.

The court issued an addendum to its Reasons for Judgment, which previously found certain Option Agreement provisions unconscionable and granted relief from penalty and forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act to the applicants.

This addendum sets the specific terms for that equitable relief, including timelines for construction commencement contingent on the respondent withdrawing an objection and the final disposition of any appeal.

The court also addressed costs, finding the applicants entirely successful and awarding them partial indemnity costs of $111,349.43, rejecting the respondents' arguments for divided success or reduced costs.

The applicants sought a declaration that repurchase and daily penalty provisions in an Option Agreement were unenforceable and relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents brought a cross-application to enforce the agreement.

The court found the provisions unconscionable due to gross disproportionality between the forfeiture/penalty and actual damages, coupled with unfair conduct by the respondents, unequal bargaining power, and inherently unreasonable terms.

The court also determined that the respondent Michael's agent implicitly waived Michael's right to rely on the construction deadline through his conduct.

Consequently, the applicants' request for relief from forfeiture was granted, and the respondents' cross-application to enforce the Option Agreement was dismissed.

The court imposed new, equitable terms for future construction and a revised repurchase price if subsequent defaults occur.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion seeking a temporary parenting order for her two young children, requesting primary care and specific access for the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed, raising concerns about the Applicant's mental health and parenting ability, initially seeking limited/supervised access, and later proposing a 50/50 schedule.

The court found the Respondent's credibility deeply flawed due to inconsistencies and strategic use of criminal charges.

The court granted the Applicant's request, returning the children to her primary care, citing the children's best interests, the pre-separation status quo, and the Respondent's failure to prioritize the children's needs post-separation.

The Applicant's request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed without prejudice.

The defendants, based in Florida, moved to stay proceedings in Ontario, arguing lack of jurisdiction or *forum non conveniens*.

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, alleged breach of contract, tortious interference, Competition Act violations, and defamation, claiming the torts occurred in Ontario.

The court found Ontario had *jurisdiction simpliciter* due to the torts committed in Ontario but granted the stay, concluding that Florida was a "clearly more appropriate forum" primarily to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent verdicts, given existing litigation in Florida and the contractual disputes being governed by Florida law.