Hossein Niroomand

The applicant commenced a family law application seeking to declare the deceased respondent's religious marriage to the second respondent void, and to annul that marriage on the basis of bigamy.

The second respondent claimed to be a common law spouse entitled to spousal support under Part III of the Family Law Act.

The court found the proceeding moot because the deceased respondent had already died before the application was commenced, such that he was no longer a "spouse" under either the Family Law Act or the Divorce Act.

The second respondent's only available remedies lie in an application for dependent's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The proceeding was dismissed as moot without prejudice to those rights.

This is a costs and interest decision in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff contractor (LMB) obtained judgment for an earned and unpaid amount of $172,740.47 but failed to prove a timely lien.

The defendant (200) had its counterclaim dismissed and the lien was declared expired.

LMB sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while 200 sought partial indemnity costs or no costs.

The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs to LMB and addressed the calculation of prejudgment interest under the parties' contract.

The court considered whether the defendant, Ali Reza Enshaei, had been properly served with the statement of claim and whether the action against him should be dismissed for lack of service.

The court found that Enshaei had not been served in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, but validated service as of April 6, 2022, when the statement of claim came to his attention.

The court also extended the time for service nunc pro tunc and found no prejudice to the defendant from the delay.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This decision concerns a construction lien action arising from a condominium project at 200 Woodbine Avenue, Toronto.

Elembe (LMB) Mechanical Ltd. claimed for unpaid contract work and extras, while Two Hundred Inc. counterclaimed for overpayment and deficiencies.

The court found that LMB had partially proved its claim for extras and was entitled to an earned and unpaid contract balance, but failed to prove that any amounts were due and payable as of the date it suspended work.

The court also found that LMB breached the contract by suspending and abandoning work, resulting in the expiry of its lien rights.

Two Hundred Inc. failed to prove its counterclaim for deficiencies.

Judgment was granted to LMB for the unpaid contract balance, but its lien was declared expired.

The plaintiff, Gashtaseb Gholipour, sued Saeid Vahid Rezaei and Persia Bakery & Kabob for breach of a shareholder agreement.

The court found that Mr. Rezaei wrongfully excluded the plaintiff from the business, constituting a breach of contract.

The plaintiff was awarded reliance damages of $177,130.75, plus interest and costs, representing the start-up funds he invested in reliance on the agreement.

The court also addressed the winding up of the company and dismissed the counterclaim and crossclaim.

The plaintiff, Mohammad Mardani, sought default judgment against the defendants, Majid Torkashvand and Trust Realty Point Inc., for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation relating to a failed investment partnership.

The court found that the defendants were properly served, failed to defend, and that the evidence supported the plaintiff’s claims.

Default judgment was granted in the amount of $50,000, plus $4,000 in costs.

The court declined to award punitive damages.

The applicant, a first mortgagee, sought the appointment of a receiver over a property due to mortgage default and unpaid realty taxes.

The registered owner consented, but a respondent claiming fraudulent transfer of title opposed the application and sought an adjournment to investigate.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, finding that the applicant's mortgage was valid under the Land Titles Act, as the mortgagor was the registered owner at the time, and the applicant was an innocent party entitled to rely on the register.

The court granted the application, finding it just and convenient to appoint a receiver given the ongoing default, the Mareva injunction on the mortgagor's assets, and the potential insufficiency of property value to cover debts.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support, seeking a retroactive adjustment due to the respondent father's misrepresentation and non-disclosure of his income.

The original consent order for child support was based on an imputed income of $50,000, but the respondent's actual income was significantly higher in subsequent years.

The court found that a "non-reviewable" clause in the prior order did not preclude variation under the Divorce Act.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence (D.B.S., Michel, Colucci), the court determined that the respondent's blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose his true income justified a retroactive increase in child support to April 2019.

The court imputed an income of $126,000 to the respondent for 2022 and on a go-forward basis due to his continued evasiveness and lack of proper disclosure.

The applicant also withdrew a mobility claim, for which the respondent was awarded partial costs.

The father sought a stay of a trial judgment that permitted the mother to relocate to California with their children and ordered the father to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The motion judge dismissed the father's request for a stay, finding that he failed to demonstrate a serious question for appeal or that the children would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted.

The court emphasized that granting a stay would radically alter the children's established living arrangements and was not in their best interests, especially given the father's thin record and the trial judge's detailed findings.

The appellant, Shoreh Forjani, appealed a summary judgment decision that awarded damages to the respondents, George Leslie Scott and Harriet Brav-Baum, for her failure to close a property purchase.

The appellant had refused to close, alleging latent defects.

The respondents subsequently sold the property for a lower price and sued for damages.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment, finding the respondents had mitigated their damages and giving no weight to the appellant's "expert" affidavits due to a lack of evidence regarding their qualifications.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that expert opinions require proper foundation regarding qualifications to be given weight, and that an adverse inference was properly drawn when the appellant obstructed questions about an expert's expertise.

The appellants appealed an order granting summary judgment to Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) in three actions, dismissing their counterclaim, granting RBC possession of premises, and vacating certificates of pending litigation (CPLs).

The appellants sought to overturn the dismissal of their counterclaim and stay the judgments, arguing that the motion judge erred in finding no genuine issue for trial regarding their counterclaim for damages related to the CPLs.

They also sought to adduce new evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's determination that the counterclaim lacked sufficient evidence of quantifiable damages and that the new evidence did not meet the test for admission on appeal.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 38.11 to set aside portions of a partition and sale order made after he failed to appear at the application hearing.

The court found that the failure to appear was due to an administrative mistake by his newly retained counsel.

Applying the five-part test for setting aside an order, the court determined that the moving party moved forthwith, would suffer prejudice if the order stood, and had an arguable case on the merits regarding his claim for a constructive trust over the property.

The motion was granted, the disputed portions of the order were set aside, and the remaining issues were stayed in favour of an ongoing family law proceeding between the parties.

A temporary motion for child support in which the mother sought ongoing child support, retroactive support, and contribution to section 7 expenses from the biological father.

The father challenged his status as a legal parent under the amended Children's Law Reform Act, arguing he was merely a sperm donor.

The court found the father was a legal parent with a child support obligation based on consensual unprotected sexual intercourse.

The court imputed income of $230,000 based on the father's failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and his pattern of concealing assets and income.

The court ordered temporary child support of $1,875 per month effective February 1, 2018, and granted leave to amend the application to include section 7 expenses.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order striking out their statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, permitting the appellants to amend their pleading.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs for both the appeal and the underlying motion.

The court found that the appellants' modest success on appeal did not warrant costs in their favour, as it represented a further indulgence to correct pleading deficiencies that multiple prior iterations and a case conference had failed to remedy.

The motion judge's costs order in favour of the respondents was varied downward by $5,000 to reflect the appellants' limited success.

Following a family law motion involving multiple heads of relief, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party sought $45,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, alleging the responding party acted in bad faith and failed to comply with earlier court orders.

The responding party argued the claimed costs were excessive for a short motion and requested her own costs or that costs follow the event at trial.

Applying Family Law Rule 24 and the reasonableness principle from appellate authority, the court found the moving party had been largely successful but that the claimed fees were excessive for a one-hour motion.

Because the responding party acted in bad faith regarding issues involving the child and the sale of the matrimonial home, the court ordered partial recovery costs.

In a high‑conflict family law motion, the applicant sought temporary custody orders and relief relating to the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found evidence that the respondent had interfered with the applicant’s court‑ordered access and had failed to cooperate with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer investigation.

The court declined to grant temporary custody but ordered the re‑appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and maintained the existing access order while warning that custody could be reconsidered depending on future conduct.

Regarding property, the court ordered steps to facilitate the sale of the matrimonial home, authorized the applicant to undertake staging work up to $10,000, dispensed with the respondent’s consent to the sale, and directed that sale proceeds be held in trust pending further order.

The court considered a motion under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to approve a proposed settlement involving minors.

After reviewing the materials and a confidential report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the court expressed serious concerns about whether the proposed settlement served the minors’ best interests and about the handling of the litigation.

The court found that the existing litigation guardian, the children’s father, faced an inherent conflict of interest that affected objective decision‑making.

The court dismissed the motion for approval, ordered that the motion record and related investigative materials be sealed, and replaced the litigation guardian with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer pursuant to Rule 7.06(2).