Erin Betts

The Co-Respondents, Reza Dadras and Nasrin Hakimi (the "Parents-in-law"), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims made against them by the Applicant, Hossein Mehdian.

Hossein sought, among other things, a declaration of a 50% beneficial interest in a property (the "BP Property") held by the Parents-in-law, alleging unjust enrichment and seeking a constructive or resulting trust based on his and Katayoun's (his spouse and the Parents-in-law's daughter) monetary and non-monetary contributions.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, particularly due to the lack of evidence from Katayoun and the need for credibility assessments regarding the alleged contributions and mutual understanding.

However, the court granted the Parents-in-law's preliminary motion to strike certain inflammatory paragraphs from Hossein's Application and granted leave for Hossein to withdraw an erroneous spousal support claim against the Parents-in-law.

The court also addressed the admissibility of late-disclosed documents and the limitation period defence, finding both raised issues for trial.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellant succeeded in part.

The appellant sought costs of $213,626.59 for the proceedings below, including prior reserved motions and expert fees.

The respondent argued for a reduction to $91,280, challenging the inclusion of prior motion costs, expert fees, and claims of duplication/excessive time.

The Court of Appeal found the prior motion costs and expert fees were reasonably included.

A modest reduction was justified due to some relief obtained by the respondent at the motion judge level (reduction of post-judgment interest).

The court awarded the appellant $180,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes for costs of the motion below.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and related relief.

The parties, married for over 28 years, presented conflicting narratives regarding the wife's financial contributions.

The court found the wife had a prima facie entitlement to support and imputed an income of $3,000 per month to her for a housing benefit received from her parents.

Based on the husband's average annual income of $586,333, the court ordered him to pay $19,839 per month in interim spousal support.

The issue of retroactive support was left for trial, and the wife was made responsible for the mortgage and line of credit on the Hillcrest Property, while the husband was ordered to pay joint Visa balances and maintain the wife on his health plan.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal concerning a motion to change a divorce judgment.

The original judgment included a provision for increased spousal support upon default.

The motion judge had found no material change in circumstances but nevertheless varied the judgment by declaring the default provision an unenforceable penalty and reducing the interest on arrears.

The Court of Appeal held that a judge cannot vary a spousal support order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act without a material change in circumstances, as the common law rule against penalty clauses applies to contracts, not to court orders that have been consented to and incorporated into a judgment.

However, the court affirmed the motion judge's power to vary the post-judgment interest rate under the Courts of Justice Act, as this power is distinct from varying support provisions under the Divorce Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, reinstating the default support provision but upholding the revised interest rate.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the pleadings of her former husband and his mother for failing to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The husband had repeatedly failed to provide valuations of his business interests and income reports over a period of nine years, offering various excuses related to his retained professionals and the pandemic.

The court found the husband's non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, striking his Answer and allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The mother-in-law's disclosure was also found deficient, but the court granted her one final opportunity to comply before her pleadings could be struck.