Hamoody Hassan

The applicant wife sought an equalization of net family property, child support, spousal support, and tort damages for intimate partner violence.

The respondent husband claimed the marriage was a nullity based on immigration fraud.

The court dismissed the nullity claim, finding the marriage genuine.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $411,499.45 to the wife and found her entitled to spousal support.

The claim for child support was dismissed as the husband did not stand in the place of a parent.

The court awarded the wife $40,000 in damages for the tort of intimate partner violence due to the husband's coercive and controlling behaviour.

The mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support and contributions to section 7 expenses.

The father opposed and sought to terminate support for the eldest child.

The court determined the parties' incomes, finding the father failed to prove entitlement to deduct employment expenses.

Retroactive child support was ordered.

The court reviewed years of claimed section 7 expenses, allowing legitimate educational, health, and extracurricular costs while denying personal vehicle expenses.

Ongoing child support was adjusted to reflect the adult children residing away from home for university studies.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he was not involved in an 'accident' and allowed the insurer to terminate and seek repayment of benefits due to misrepresentation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and erred in law by denying his request to adjourn the written hearing to an in-person hearing to assess credibility.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration, finding the applicant had ample prior opportunity to request an oral hearing or submit affidavit evidence but failed to do so, and that the original decision relied on expert engineering evidence contradicting the applicant's sworn statements rather than a simple credibility assessment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied benefits and sought repayment, arguing the collision was staged or did not occur as reported.

Relying on forensic engineering evidence that contradicted the applicant's version of events, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove he was involved in an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant wilfully misrepresented material facts, entitling the insurer to terminate benefits under s. 53 and ordering the applicant to repay $3,806.09 plus interest.

The court sentenced Matthew Elias, who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

The decision details the disturbing facts of the offence, Elias’s personal circumstances, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found that, despite the seriousness of the offence and the usual need for denunciation and deterrence, Elias’s significant mental health issues, genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and severe collateral consequences justified a conditional sentence.

The decision applies recent appellate guidance on the range and principles for sentencing in child pornography cases.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

This decision addresses costs following a nine-day trial primarily concerning parenting issues.

The applicant (father) was found to be more successful on the primary residence issue but not on decision-making responsibility, resulting in divided success.

Both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour, including family violence and financial abuse by the father, and non-disclosure and impaired driving by the mother.

The court considered the divided success, the unreasonable conduct of both parties, and the mother's limited financial resources (ODSP benefits).

Despite the father's claim for $105,000, the court awarded a modest costs award of $7,000, payable in installments, finding it just and reasonable given all factors.

The parties separated in 2018 and had been following a week-about parenting schedule for their child, despite the mother relocating to Innisfil and the father remaining in London.

At trial, the mother sought an order for the child to alternate residences annually, while the father sought primary residence.

The court found the mother's proposal would be disruptive and not in the child's best interests.

Considering the mother's history of impaired driving (including an incident with the child in the car) and the father's history of family violence, the court ordered joint decision-making responsibility and primary residence with the father, with strict conditions on the mother's parenting time regarding alcohol and drug use.

The applicant father sought expanded parenting time and decision-making responsibility for his two children, and reconciliation counselling for the older child.

The court considered the best interests of the children, including the impact of historical family violence and the mother's potential alienation.

The court ordered increased unsupervised parenting time for the younger child, and immediate commencement of therapeutic reconciliation counselling for the older child.

The court declined to order joint decision-making at this stage and denied the applicant's request for security for costs, while emphasizing that prior cost orders must be paid.

The applicant mother sought costs of $35,343.30 following a 13-day trial regarding a motion to change parenting and child support provisions.

The respondent father argued each party should bear their own costs or pay a maximum of $10,000.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful on the primary issue of maintaining joint custody and the parenting schedule.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including divided success, the parties' behaviour, and the father's ability to pay, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $20,000 to the mother.

The applicant father sought sole custody and significant changes to the parenting schedule and child support, alleging the mother exposed children to conflict and was deficient in care.

The respondent mother sought minor adjustments to the existing joint custody order and child support.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the older child's changing wishes, parental communication breakdown, mother's exposure of children to domestic conflict, and father's actions undermining the mother-daughter relationship.

The court maintained joint custody and the existing 8-6 parenting schedule, with modifications to respect the older child's wishes for discretion, allow paternal grandparents to assist with school transport, and clarify arrangements when the father travels.

Child support was recalculated on a set-off basis, imputing income to the mother.

Following a 19-day trial where the maternal grandmother was granted custody of her grandson, she sought costs against the respondent father and mother.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, found the maternal grandmother to be substantially successful, particularly on the primary issue of custody.

Despite offers to settle not being more favourable than the final order, and considering the importance and complexity of the case, the court awarded the maternal grandmother $85,000 in costs against the father, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, taking into account his ability to pay.

No costs were awarded for or against the mother.

This case concerns a custody and access dispute over a child, Dallas David Ross, born in 2012.

The applicant, the child's maternal grandmother, sought custody, supported by the child's mother.

The respondent father also sought custody, asserting his current ability to care for the child despite past mental health issues and domestic conflict.

The court, applying the 'best interests of the child' principle, found the maternal grandmother to be the child's psychological parent, having provided a stable home environment since January 2017 and significant care prior.

The father's past conduct, including domestic violence and suicide threats witnessed by the child, and his incomplete mental health treatment, weighed against his claim.

The court granted custody to the maternal grandmother, with structured parenting time for both parents and child support orders.

The Children's Aid Society sought a supervision order for a child with kin, while the kin (maternal great aunt and her spouse) sought custody.

The mother, father, and foster parents proposed extended society care for adoption by the foster parents.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's drug abuse and unstable living situation.

The court dismissed expert evidence on attachment theory as not specific to the child.

Ultimately, the court granted custody of the child to the kin, finding it to be in the child's best interests, and ordered reasonable access for the mother, siblings, and foster parents.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking relief regarding custody and access that had already been dealt with on a final basis.

The court noted the respondent's history of failing to cooperate with court orders, including refusing to participate in a family assessment and failing to pay previously ordered costs.

The court dismissed the motion as procedurally improper, noting that any attempt to change the final orders would require a formal motion to change, and ordered costs against the respondent.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied in 2012 and 2013.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal in 2016, more than a year after the two-year limitation period had expired for all disputed benefits.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial letters were clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding no reasonable grounds to do so given the lengthy delay and lack of action by the applicant to preserve her rights.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final order for custody and child support.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent breached a consent order requiring settlement funds to be held in trust.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the respondent could not have known of the order's existence as it was never properly prepared, issued, entered, or served upon him or his civil counsel.

The court noted that while the respondent's conduct was reprehensible—withdrawing approximately $90,000 for personal use while owing child support arrears—the procedural requirements for a contempt finding could not be satisfied.

The motion to change was ordered to proceed on an expedited basis.

The applicant father sought to vary a previous order imputing his income at $100,000 per year, and claimed retroactive and ongoing spousal support, while the respondent mother sought child support arrears.

The court found the father failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and was intentionally underemployed, upholding the $100,000 imputed income.

The father's claims for spousal support were dismissed due to his conduct and lack of need.

Child support arrears were fixed at $60,927.48, with no ongoing child support payable by either party due to a split custody arrangement and set-off.

The applicant sought to vary spousal support upwards, arguing the respondent deliberately reduced his income and failed to disclose financial benefits to minimize support obligations.

The respondent sought to reduce spousal support due to retirement.

The court found the respondent's retirement and reduced income were part of a scheme to reduce spousal support, imputed income to him for several years, and found the applicant had not made sufficient efforts to become self-sufficient.

Spousal support was varied upwards for the applicant, and significant arrears were ordered.

The respondent, Christopher MacArthur, brought a motion to add the applicant Jennifer Breen's fiancé, Adam Brock, as a party to ongoing 'motion to change' proceedings, which included a claim for a restraining order against Mr. Brock.

The court considered whether adding Mr. Brock was necessary to decide all issues in the case, applying Rule 7(5) and Rule 14(3) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that Mr. Brock's involvement was not necessary for the main proceedings concerning custody and access, noting that he would automatically be a party for the purposes of the interim restraining order motion.

The motion to add Mr. Brock as a party to the main proceedings was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that such additions should be used sparingly to avoid complicating litigation and increasing costs, which could negatively impact the children's best interests.