Heng (Pandora) Du

This case involved a motion and cross-motion concerning interim parenting arrangements for two children, O. (almost 9) and T. (12), following the parents' separation.

The mother (applicant) had unilaterally relocated with O. and changed her school, while the father (respondent) sought O.'s return to her former school and residence.

The court addressed the children's residence, school, and parenting time, considering the best interests of the children, the impact of the mother's unilateral actions, and the special needs of T. The court also had to consider the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on school operations and parenting schedules.

The mother was granted interim parenting time and decision-making for O. (excluding the September 2020 school decision), and the father for T. O.'s current school placement in Markham was maintained temporarily.

A specific interim parenting schedule was set, accounting for school closures due to COVID-19.

Neither party was awarded costs.

A case conference was ordered for June 2020 to address O.'s school for September 2020 and the OCL's position.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action regarding dozens of false and malicious statements posted by the defendant on WeChat.

The defendant, who was self-represented, failed to provide any evidence to support the defences of justification, fair comment, or qualified privilege.

The court found the statements were defamatory, published, and made with malice.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding the plaintiff $35,000 in general damages, a permanent injunction, and full indemnity costs.

A focused trial concerning child support and a restraining order in a family law matter.

The applicant mother sought child support based on an imputed income of $32,928 retroactive to February 1, 2014, and a restraining order prohibiting the respondent father from contacting or coming within 500 metres of her and the children except for access purposes.

The respondent agreed to income imputation of $31,000 but opposed the restraining order.

The court found the father engaged in intentional underemployment, imputed income of $32,980, ordered retroactive child support from February 1, 2014, and granted the restraining order based on evidence of extensive domestic violence and abuse.

This was a costs decision following dismissal of a summary judgment motion and granting of a cross-motion in a family civil dispute.

Although the plaintiffs were successful on the motions, the court held they had also caused wasted costs through the commencement of a Small Claims Court action and the need to amend the pleadings.

The court declined to award immediate costs and instead ordered fixed costs in the cause.

If the plaintiffs ultimately succeed, they will recover $10,000 all inclusive for the two motions; if the defendant ultimately succeeds, she will receive no costs for those motions.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims arising from alleged oral agreements among siblings relating to a condominium investment in China and loans allegedly advanced to the defendant to purchase a property in Ontario.

The defendant argued lack of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, abuse of process due to a parallel Small Claims action, and that the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that it possessed in personam jurisdiction over the Ontario-resident defendant and that the claims sought damages rather than a declaration of title to foreign land.

The court further concluded that Ontario was not an inappropriate forum and that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, including the existence of the alleged agreements and the discoverability of the limitation periods.

The defendant’s summary judgment motion was dismissed and the plaintiffs’ cross‑motion to amend pleadings and transfer and consolidate the Small Claims Court action was granted.

The applicant mother brought a motion to lift the automatic stay imposed on her custody and access application under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent father had commenced a divorce proceeding in Superior Court of Justice seeking joint custody.

The court considered whether to lift the stay by examining bad faith, prejudice, and waste of court resources.

The court found that the father's divorce application was premature, issued after being served with the mother's application and despite knowing a court date was already scheduled.

The court determined that all issues except the divorce itself could be dealt with in the Ontario Court of Justice and that the mother would suffer prejudice if required to proceed in Superior Court, particularly given language barriers and her vulnerability to the father's control.

The motion was granted and the automatic stay was lifted.

The applicant filed a Form 10 seeking to add the new operating name of the respondent business as a party.

Following the applicant's termination, the shares of the corporate respondent were purchased and its operating name was changed.

The Tribunal found that because the business changed hands via a share purchase rather than an asset sale, the corporate respondent remained liable despite the change in ownership and name.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause to reflect the correct name and granted the new ownership 35 days to file a Response.

A short marriage ended in litigation concerning divorce, equalization of net family property, ownership of a condominium purchased before marriage, and claims relating to wedding gifts and a motor vehicle.

The court found that the condominium had been purchased entirely with funds provided by the applicant’s parents prior to the marriage and that alleged payments by the respondent’s parents in China were not proven to have been transferred to the parties or intended to affect property division in Ontario.

Given the brief period of cohabitation and the respondent’s minimal financial contribution, equalization under s. 5 of the Family Law Act would have been unconscionable.

The court therefore ordered an unequal division of net family property, confirming the applicant’s sole ownership of the condominium and jewelry while recognizing the vehicle as a gift to the respondent.

The appellant father appealed a child support order, arguing the trial judge erred in finding his step-daughter was a child of the marriage, in determining his income to be $40,000, and in ordering the full table amount for his biological daughter despite a joint custody order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or significant misapprehension of the evidence.

The trial judge properly applied the Chartier test for the step-child, made credibility findings regarding the appellant's income, and correctly noted the appellant's parenting time did not meet the 40 percent threshold under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.