Associate Judge Imran E. Kamal

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion to compel its former partner, the defendant, to produce documents related to his alleged misappropriation of client funds.

The defendant resisted production, arguing the documents were protected by solicitor-client privilege and that production would require a blanket waiver from hundreds of clients.

The court granted the motion, finding that the parties and their litigation counsel were within the 'circle of privilege' because they previously shared a solicitor-client relationship with the clients.

The court held that production between the parties did not constitute a waiver of privilege and that the requested documents, including the defendant's personal bank records, were highly relevant to the allegations.

The defendant insurer, Dominion, sought permission at a case conference to bring a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's underinsured motorist claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion was premature and involved significant credibility and damages issues.

The court dismissed the request to schedule the motion, finding that a partial summary judgment posed a significant risk of inconsistent findings at trial, involved credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's injuries, and would not be efficient given the incomplete evidentiary record.

The respondent mother experienced a mental health crisis and was hospitalized, during which time the child stayed with the applicant father.

After the mother stabilized and was discharged, the father refused to return the child, engaging in self-help to establish a new status quo.

Both parties brought motions seeking urgent relief regarding parenting time and decision-making.

The court dismissed the requests for urgency, finding that the mother's mental health condition was stable, she was following her treatment plan, and a safety plan was in place.

The court emphasized that a parent's mental illness does not automatically justify limiting parenting time and cautioned against relying on stigma and stereotypes in family law proceedings.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a wrongful dismissal action on the grounds that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff was terminated on January 4, 2022, for non-compliance with vaccination policies.

He initially pursued proceedings in Federal Court, which were unsuccessful.

The plaintiff did not commence the present action until August 26, 2024.

The court found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known all material facts necessary to discover his claim on the date of termination, and that the two-year limitation period expired on January 4, 2024.

The plaintiff's misunderstanding of the legal significance of the facts and his belief that the federal government was responsible did not suspend the running of the limitation period.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The defendant brought a motion for summary dismissal under Rule 2.1.01, arguing that the plaintiff's claim for dependent's relief was frivolous and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a 37-year-old adult, sought support from her late father's estate based on his failure to provide financial assistance since childhood, relying on a 1998 child support order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claim was not clearly frivolous on its face and that the plaintiff raised arguable legal issues under the broad dependent's relief provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act worthy of consideration by the court.

The respondent Law Society of Ontario brought a requisition under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the applicant's application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought declarations that the LSO violated his Charter rights under sections 24(1) and 15(1) by denying him access to court and discriminating against him based on race in connection with the revocation of his law licence in 2020.

The court found that the application was the eighth proceeding initiated by the applicant following the revocation and constituted a collateral attack on decisions that had been upheld through multiple levels of court, including the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.

The application was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendant insurance company brought a motion to quash a summons to examine an employee (an insurance adjuster) for a pending motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff sought to examine the adjuster to test the relevance and proportionality of the defendant's broad production requests spanning forty years of documents related to historical sexual abuse claims.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the proposed examination was relevant to the underlying motion, necessary for fair adjudication, and not an abuse of process.

Following an interim parenting motion where neither party's proposed schedule was adopted, the court was required to determine costs.

The respondent sought $1,899.04 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought $4,500 on a partial indemnity basis or no costs.

The court found that success was divided, as the applicant was forced to bring the motion due to the respondent's unilateral behaviour, but the applicant's proposed schedule was rejected due to family violence concerns.

Given the divided success and the conduct of both parties, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

This is a costs decision following an interim parenting order motion.

The court previously granted an interim parenting arrangement providing the applicant father with weekend and mid-week parenting time.

The respondent mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought no costs or alternatively costs in his favour.

The court found that neither party was successful on the motion, as neither proposed parenting schedule was adopted.

The court determined that success was divided due to the respondent's unreasonable and vacillating positions throughout the motion and the applicant's unsuccessful position stemming from family violence concerns involving his parents.

Accordingly, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The plaintiff sought leave to issue an alias writ of seizure and sale and a notice of garnishment against a judgment debtor who had changed his name and used multiple aliases to evade enforcement of a judgment.

The defendant had been convicted of mail and wire fraud in the United States, ordered to pay restitution, and subsequently deported to Canada where he fraudulently obtained a name change.

After locating the defendant in Niagara-on-the-Lake through investigative efforts, the plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for leave to issue enforcement mechanisms in the defendant's legal name and known aliases.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had satisfied the low evidentiary threshold for leave and that it was in the interests of justice to permit enforcement against the defendant's aliases to prevent further evasion.

A second mortgagee sought leave to issue a Writ of Possession and an order that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply to the mortgaged property pursuant to section 5(i) of that Act.

The mortgaged property had multiple occupants sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities.

The court found that the evidence was insufficient to determine whether section 5(i) applied and that notice must be given to the owner and tenants before such a determination could be made, as it would affect their rights under the RTA.

The motion was adjourned pending service on the owner and tenants and further submissions.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules seeking an order to question Dr. Brad Booth, a psychiatrist retained by the respondent, for a maximum of five hours prior to trial.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicant had not met the statutory test.

The court found that all three prongs of the Rule 20(5) test were satisfied: it would be unfair to proceed without questioning; the information was not easily available by other means; and the questioning would not cause unacceptable delay or undue expense.

The court granted the motion, permitting five hours of questioning on August 18, 2025, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The decision addresses an interim parenting motion involving allegations of family violence, including by the applicant’s parents against the respondent.

The court considers the impact of family violence by non-litigants and the best interests of the child, ultimately granting the applicant father parenting time every weekend and Wednesday evening.

The court condemns coercive control and family violence by extended family members and emphasizes the need for a child-focused, fact-specific approach to parenting orders.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order for delay in a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiff’s counsel misunderstood the effect of the COVID-19 suspension of administrative dismissals, believing there was additional time to set the matter down for trial.

The court found the explanation for delay unsatisfactory, noting the plaintiff and her counsel failed to move the action forward and did not provide evidence of a plan thwarted by unforeseen obstacles.

The court also found the presumption of prejudice to the defendants was not rebutted, as key evidence and witnesses were no longer available.

The decision emphasizes the responsibility of parties to advance litigation and the court’s intolerance for delay.

The court considered a motion by the plaintiff for substituted service of a Statement of Claim, an extension of time for service, and leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

The court denied substituted service through the defendant’s insurer, TD Insurance, finding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that all reasonable steps to effect personal service had been taken, nor that the requirements for substituted service on an insurer were met.

The court granted an extension of time for service and leave to amend the Statement of Claim, finding no prejudice to the defendants that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The plaintiff, Ari Lesser, brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring third party Cogeco Connexion Inc. to disclose basic subscriber information associated with a specific IP address.

The court distinguished between Norwich orders and Rule 30.10 orders, finding that as an Associate Judge, it could not grant equitable relief but could grant the requested order under Rule 30.10.

The court found the information sought was relevant and necessary, and that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case against the unknown defendants.

The motion was granted.

The applicant sought an order for a Voice of the Child report to determine the child's preferences regarding high school attendance.

The respondent opposed the motion and contested the proposed reporter.

The court raised issues regarding the jurisdiction of an Associate Justice to order such a report and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Finding that an Associate Justice lacks the necessary jurisdiction, the court referred the motion to a judge to be decided in writing on an expedited basis.

The decision addresses an urgent, without notice motion by the Applicant mother for orders prohibiting the Respondent from removing the children from Ontario, requiring the surrender of the children’s passports, permitting substituted service, and facilitating video parenting time.

The court finds a real and substantial risk of removal and family violence, and grants the requested relief, emphasizing the best interests of the children and the need for stability, safety, and ongoing contact with both parents.

The court considered whether the applicant's motion for urgent parenting relief should be heard before a case conference, as required by the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought immediate primary care of the child, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a police enforcement clause.

The court reviewed the parties' positions, the applicable legal tests for urgency, and the conduct of counsel.

The court found that the test for urgency was not met, dismissed the urgent motion, and awarded costs against the applicant.

The court considered a motion by Hansa Mortgage Investment Corporation for a writ of possession and the discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered by the Fuamba family, who had resided in the property for over 15 years.

The court reviewed the legal and equitable factors for discharging a CPL, including the uniqueness of the property, the parties’ intentions, the presence of alternative claims for damages, and the balance of convenience.

The court found that while the property was unique to the Fuambas, the lack of equity and their agreement to vacate after July 15, 2025, rendered the CPL of little practical utility.

The court granted leave to issue a writ of possession (execution delayed until after July 15, 2025) and ordered the CPL discharged upon registration of a transfer under power of sale.