Imran E. Kamal

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.

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 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.