G. Karahotzitis

The respondent wife in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking an order that service of her Answer and Amended Answer on the applicant husband be deemed service on 36 added corporate and trust respondents, arguing the husband was their alter ego.

The court found insufficient evidence on the motion to make an alter ego finding.

The court validated service on one Ontario corporation and two entities in non-contracting states under the Rules of Civil Procedure as they had actual notice.

However, the court held it had no discretion to validate service on the remaining entities located in Hague Convention contracting states, as Rule 17.05(3) is mandatory and a complete code for service abroad.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleadings and a separate motion for contempt, both based on substantially similar allegations of breaching court orders.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the motion to strike pending the disposition of the contempt motion, arguing that responding to the motion to strike would effectively compel him to testify and violate his right against self-incrimination in the quasi-criminal contempt proceeding.

The court agreed, finding that the applicant's right to a fair trial on the contempt motion would be prejudiced if he were forced to respond to the civil motion to strike first.

The court ordered the motion to strike stayed pending the resolution of the contempt motion.

Following a successful motion transferring an application to the Family Court Branch, the responding party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found the application had been commenced in the wrong forum and that the moving party had previously offered reasonable alternatives to avoid unnecessary motion proceedings.

The applicant nevertheless persisted with unsupported legal arguments and rejected offers to discontinue or consent to transfer.

The court held that the opposition was unreasonable and vexatious, warranting substantial indemnity costs.

Costs of $7,446 were awarded.

The responding party brought a motion to transfer an application challenging the validity of a marriage contract to the Family Court branch of the Superior Court of Justice.

The underlying application sought to set aside the contract under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act and obtain declaratory relief regarding jointly owned real property.

The court held that proceedings under the Family Law Act must be commenced and determined in the Family Court in municipalities where that branch exists, pursuant to ss. 21.1 and 21.8 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Because the application fell squarely within the Family Law Act and York Region has a Family Court, the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.

The motion to transfer the proceeding to the Family Court was therefore granted.