Golan Yaron

The respondents (husband and his parents) sought the release of net proceeds from the sale of a property, which were held in trust under a preservation order.

They initially sought summary judgment on property ownership.

The applicant (wife) opposed, arguing the funds should remain in trust to secure a potential equalization payment.

The court declined summary judgment, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding property ownership.

Applying the test for preservation orders under section 12 of the Family Law Act, the court found a strong likelihood of an equalization payment owed by the husband and concerns about asset dissipation.

The court ordered the proceeds to remain in trust, concluding that the respondents would not suffer irreparable harm.

The mother brought a motion for child support, seeking to impute an income of $33,490 to the father.

The father brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the mother's affidavit for relying on unnamed third-party sources.

The court struck the offending paragraphs but found the father's financial evidence to be inconsistent and unreliable.

Noting the parties' history of fraudulent schemes and the father's failure to support the children despite having the ability to work, the court imputed the requested income and ordered the father to pay $835 monthly in child support.

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 responding party brought a motion to change a final order to reduce child support in Welland.

The moving party moved to transfer the proceeding to Toronto, arguing that the children reside there and it would be more convenient.

The court found that under Rule 5(1) of the Family Law Rules, the responding party was permitted to start the case in Welland where she resides, as the motion did not deal with custody or access.

The court dismissed the transfer motion, concluding it was not substantially more convenient to deal with the case in Toronto, especially given the shift to virtual hearings and the fact that evidence regarding the responding party's income is located in Welland.

Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a will was valid, the court determined costs in estate litigation.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs against the applicant personally, arguing the motion was wasteful and unreasonable.

The court held that the use of summary judgment was not improper and that the circumstances did not justify personal liability for costs.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded partial indemnity costs and ordered that the costs be paid from the estate assets.

The applicant franchisor commenced an application in Toronto seeking injunctive relief against the respondent franchisees for alleged breaches of a restrictive covenant in Mississauga.

The respondents brought a motion under Rule 13.1.02 to transfer the application to Brampton.

The court weighed the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) and found that the events, damages, subject matter, and convenience of parties and witnesses all favoured Brampton.

The motion to transfer venue was granted, subject to the approval of the Regional Senior Justices.