Harpreet Kaur Sidhu

The applicant, Sahil Kapila, brought a motion to remove his father, Prem Kumar Kapila, as an added respondent in a matrimonial dispute with his former spouse, Rubi Chhina.

Rubi had added Prem, making various claims including domestic violence, trespass, rent/utilities, and trust claims over property and funds.

The court found that Rubi's claims against Prem did not disclose a reasonable cause of action under Rule 7(3) of the Family Law Rules, nor did they meet the threshold for adding a party under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion to remove Prem as a party, thereby also dismissing Rubi's cross-motion seeking financial disclosure and freezing of Prem's assets.

This was a costs-only family law decision arising from prolonged delay and deficient materials in obtaining an uncontested divorce after the parties had already settled their divorce action.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found that the responding party's conduct had turned a simple divorce into unnecessary motion litigation, justifying a substantial costs award to the moving party.

The court also considered whether counsel should bear costs personally under the Young and Galganov framework, but declined to do so despite serious concern with counsel's conduct.

Costs of $2,750 all-inclusive were ordered payable by the responding party within 30 days.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgement to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of malicious prosecution, defamation, and fraud/theft relating to a saving circle and employment termination.

The defendants also sought default judgement on their counterclaim for theft.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for summary judgement.

The court granted partial summary judgement dismissing the malicious prosecution and defamation claims, finding no evidence that the police lacked independent discretion in laying charges or that defamatory statements were made to third parties.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial for the saving circle and employment monies claims due to credibility issues.

The court also set aside the noting of default on the counterclaim to avoid inconsistent findings at trial.

The plaintiff S.M. brought a motion to strike his jury notice, filed in 2014, seeking to proceed with a judge-alone trial in March 2021 due to anticipated delays in jury trials caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The primary defendant, Ero Longo, opposed the motion.

The court applied the "justice better served" test, considering factors such as the substantive right to a jury trial, the extent of delay, and the practicalities of trial scheduling.

The court found that a six-month delay to an October 2021 jury trial blitz was not unconscionable, especially given the plaintiff's own delays in the action and the availability of retrofitted court facilities.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice beyond delay or that a judge-alone trial would better serve justice.

The motion was dismissed, the March 2021 trial dates were vacated, and the case was placed on the October 2021 trial blitz for an in-person jury trial.

The issue of striking the jury was left open for future reconsideration if the October trial does not proceed.