George Karahotzitis

The court considered a motion by the plaintiffs for interim and interlocutory relief restraining the use of corporate funds by J.D.H. Holdings Limited to pay the defendants' legal and professional fees in an oppression action.

The plaintiffs also sought an accounting and repayment of such funds, or, in the alternative, a partial reimbursement to Jonshal Enterprises Inc. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had not established irreparable harm or overwhelming fairness concerns to justify the relief sought, and that any damages could be addressed at trial.

The court considered a motion by the JDH Defendants for production and disclosure of documents over which the plaintiffs claimed privilege in an oppression and breach of fiduciary duty action.

The court found that the plaintiffs met their initial onus to establish litigation privilege over communications from and after December 16, 2019, and denied the defendants’ request for the court to review the 282 documents.

The court ordered both sides to produce redacted versions of privileged documents (excluding those with current litigation counsel and post-litigation communications) and to meet and confer regarding any non-privileged questions.

No costs were awarded to either side.

The moving party husband sought a stay of a lower court order requiring him to produce an updated financial statement, pending the disposition of his appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the husband failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as compliance with the order would not constitute attornment to the court's jurisdiction.

The balance of convenience favoured the wife, given the fundamental obligation for financial disclosure in family law proceedings.

The husband was ordered to comply with the production order and pay costs.

The appellant sought to overturn a motion judge's finding that a settlement was reached in mediation and the subsequent granting of partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle.

The appellate court agreed that substantial evidence supported the existence of a settlement agreement, despite the absence of written minutes, and upheld the appropriateness of partial summary judgment given the limited remaining issues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant sought to strike the Respondent's pleadings and vest title in two Ontario properties due to the Respondent's persistent non-compliance with numerous court orders regarding financial disclosure, support payments, and asset preservation.

The Respondent had failed to provide full disclosure of his overseas business interests and had accumulated significant arrears.

The court granted the vesting order to protect the matrimonial home from foreclosure and conditionally struck the Respondent's pleadings, allowing for limited participation on parenting issues if financial compliance was not met within 90 days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. dated September 3, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.

The applicant was largely successful on a motion regarding child support and financial disclosure.

The respondent conceded the applicant's entitlement to costs, leaving only the quantum to be determined.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith by persistently refusing to provide full and frank financial disclosure, thereby unnecessarily driving up litigation costs.

The applicant also beat her offer to settle.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $70,000, characterized as child support for enforcement purposes.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal in respect to three of the four issues raised in the notice of motion.

Costs of the motion for leave to appeal were fixed at $6,750, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

Following a motion and cross-motion with divided success, the applicant sought costs of $25,000.

The respondent argued for no costs or costs reserved, citing limited means and divided success.

The court found the applicant was presumed entitled to costs as the respondent's motion was dismissed and the applicant achieved some success.

The court fixed costs at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by the respondent within 120 days due to his limited means.

The Applicant brought a motion for disclosure of the Respondent's solicitor's file and for responses to questions refused during questioning.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for disclosure of the Applicant's solicitor's file.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement, alleging the Respondent materially misrepresented his financial circumstances by failing to disclose a significant business sale.

The court found that the Respondent had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting his state of mind at issue in his defence against allegations of intentional torts.

The court also determined that settlement privilege did not apply to the Respondent's settlement discussions due to the public interest in ensuring full and frank disclosure in cases of alleged misrepresentation.

The Applicant's motion was granted, and the Respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought disclosure of various corporate and financial records relating to businesses owned by the respondent and his family.

The court ordered disclosure of corporate financial records back to 2014 for business valuation purposes, as well as post-March 2020 records relevant to a pending motion to reduce support due to the pandemic.

The court also ordered the respondents to request accounting records from their accountants and to produce commercial leases subject to a confidentiality agreement and notice to landlords.

The parties were involved in a family law dispute over custody and access.

The applicant obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order and an order for supervised access based on evidence from a witness (C.B.W.) alleging the respondent solicited sexual services from minors.

The respondent brought a motion to question C.B.W. before filing responding evidence, citing concerns about self-incrimination in an ongoing police investigation.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to compel the respondent to file responding evidence and attend questioning.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding it would be unfair to allow questioning without reply evidence.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering the respondent to file responding affidavits and attend questioning, holding that the best interests of the child outweighed the respondent's self-incrimination concerns.

The Applicant and Respondent Imran Khan, separated spouses, were in litigation regarding the sale of a beneficially owned property titled in the names of Imran's parents (Zarinataj and Ishaq Khan).

The Respondents brought a motion to compel the sale of the property at an accepted offer price, which the Applicant opposed, arguing the price was too low.

The court addressed the urgency of the motion, the admissibility of a "without prejudice" settlement letter, and whether the motion should be heard despite Imran Khan's arrears in support payments.

The court found the matter urgent due to lost opportunity and ongoing expenses, ruled the settlement letter inadmissible due to settlement privilege, and allowed the motion to proceed despite arrears, citing the Applicant's dilatory conduct and the interests of the other Respondents.

The court ordered the property to be sold at the accepted offer, with a condition allowing the Applicant to litigate the reasonableness of the sale price at trial, and directed that any support arrears be paid from Imran Khan's share of the proceeds.

The court also recommended the appointment of a case management judge due to the contentious and complex nature of the case.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to suspend the respondent's parenting time with their four-year-old daughter or, alternatively, an order that the respondent adhere to strict COVID-19 protocols.

The applicant, a family physician with stage 3 breast cancer, was part of a high-risk group and alleged the respondent was not following public health directives by self-isolating with his new partner's parents and daughter at a cottage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the respondent's arrangements were reasonable, consistent with public health guidelines, and in the child's best interests to maintain existing parenting arrangements.

The court emphasized the presumption that existing parenting orders should be respected during the pandemic and the need for parents to communicate responsibly.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to reinstate his struck pleadings, the court determined the costs payable to the successful applicant.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to comply with financial disclosure orders, warranting full recovery costs under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court reduced the quantum due to the applicant's counsel's unreasonable delay in responding to communications and excessive hours claimed.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 in costs.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside an order striking his pleadings and to reinstate them in a family law proceeding.

His pleadings had been struck due to non-compliance with financial disclosure orders, with a condition that he could move to reinstate them if he complied by a specific date.

The court found that while the respondent made some efforts to comply, he failed to meet the clear deadlines and did not bring his motion to reinstate until over a year later, after the applicant had filed for an uncontested trial.

The motion to reinstate pleadings was dismissed due to the respondent's significant delay and continuous disregard for court orders.