Gabriella Varsha Deokaran

The landlord moved to quash the tenants' appeal of an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued the Board Member demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and made palpable errors of fact by ignoring a Fire Marshall's email confirming fire code deficiencies.

The Divisional Court found that the tenants' appeal raised legitimate questions of law regarding both bias and palpable errors of fact.

The landlord's motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

A child protection disposition hearing following a finding that three children were in need of protection due to emotional harm resulting from parental neglect and exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse.

The mother had exposed the children to crack cocaine use, domestic violence with an abusive boyfriend, serious school absences, and neglect of medical and dental needs.

The father sought custody.

The court granted final custody to the father under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that the children were thriving in his care and that the mother lacked insight into the harm caused and continued to pose risks through poor judgment and manipulation during access visits.

The court ordered supervised access initially, transitioning to unsupervised weekend and holiday access.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $10,000 in damages and $4,000 in costs for malicious prosecution and defamation arising from false allegations of sexual assault.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, relied on stereotypes, and improperly awarded costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were supported by the evidence and that the costs award was reasonable given the six-day trial.

The mother applied for sole custody of the parties' two children, retroactive child support, and retroactive spousal support.

The father also sought sole custody, arguing the mother relied too heavily on his parents for childcare.

The court found the mother had been the primary caregiver and had adequate parenting skills, while the father had a history of domestic violence and had underpaid child support.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, but allowed the father unsupervised access, finding his recreational marijuana use did not pose a risk to the children.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive child support of $6,053.00 and a lump sum retroactive spousal support payment of $7,500.00.

The respondent sought to modify a custody and access arrangement by requesting shared parenting on a weekly basis, arguing he had maintained regular involvement with his son since infancy, maintained stable employment and family circumstances, and lived in close proximity to the applicant.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the child was thriving under the current arrangement and that the respondent's motivation was partially financial.

The Children's Lawyer recommended maintaining sole custody with the applicant and increasing access to include alternate Thursday overnights.

The court accepted the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and dismissed the motion, finding that the child was performing well under the current arrangement and that the child himself preferred the status quo.