Associate Judge Imran E. Kamal

The court considered a motion by the Administrator to revive the consumer proposal of Marion Patricia Amos, which had been annulled after the debtor defaulted due to health and financial issues.

The court reviewed the statutory discretion under s. 66.31(9) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the relevant factors for revival, including the debtor’s good faith, completion of payments, and lack of creditor opposition.

The motion was granted, reviving the proposal.

The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendants’ Statement of Defence due to repeated non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and court orders, including failure to serve affidavits of documents and notices of intention to act in person after their counsel was removed.

The court reviewed the relevant rules and case law, found the defendants’ non-compliance clear and material, and granted the motion to strike the defence.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking interim parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility regarding the parties' special needs child.

The respondent mother, who was self-represented, opposed the motion and raised allegations of family violence.

The court found that there was no evidence of risk to the child with the father and that the proposed parenting schedule was in the child's best interests.

The court granted the father's motion for interim parenting time and joint decision-making, ordering no costs due to the mother's limited financial means.

The decision addresses an urgent motion brought by the respondent, Maria Mahmud, seeking to enforce recommendations from a case conference and a domestic contract regarding parenting time with the child, Minha Abid.

The court found the matter was not urgent, emphasizing the importance of case conferences, settlement discussions, and the confidentiality of those proceedings.

The court also discussed the doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process, finding neither applied to bar the motion.

The motion was dismissed as not urgent, and no costs were awarded.

The plaintiff, Ari Lesser, brought a motion for a Norwich order compelling Change.org to produce subscriber information identifying the creator of a petition that allegedly defamed him.

The court reviewed the legal test for granting a Norwich order, including the necessity of the information, the relationship between the applicant and the third party, and the interests of justice.

The court found that all criteria were met and granted the order, allowing the plaintiff to obtain the requested information from Change.org.

The plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to issue certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against two parcels of land transferred by the defendant Jazzar Holdings Inc. to individuals believed to be the principal’s parents for nominal consideration, while a lawsuit was pending.

The court found a high probability of success in the main action, evidence of intent to defeat or delay creditors, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The order was made on an ex parte basis due to urgency and risk of dissipation of assets.