James F. Diamond

The applicant sought interim relief, which was granted by an earlier endorsement.

The respondent failed to file responding materials by the deadline and requested an adjournment to allow newly retained counsel to finalize materials and argue the motion, particularly regarding access.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing the motion was moot as the children had been returned to her.

The court acknowledged the respondent's delay but found it was not in a position to foreclose the respondent's access request without reviewing his sworn evidence.

The motion was adjourned for a further telephone conference to assess the urgency of the respondent's access terms.

Interim orders were made regarding primary care, communication through Our Family Wizard, and reservation of costs.

The applicant sought urgent relief for the return of two children, alleging unlawful withholding by the respondent amidst the COVID-19 situation.

The court found the matter urgent and granted the applicant's interim motion, ordering the immediate return of the children to the applicant's care and control, maintaining the status quo.

The respondent's claim of a 50/50 parenting agreement was not supported by the evidence.

The parties, self-represented, sought final orders regarding custody and parenting time for their eight-year-old child, Dylan, following their separation in 2012.

The applicant sought joint custody and equal parenting time on a week-on/week-off basis.

The respondent sought sole custody and continuation of the existing parenting schedule.

The court granted joint custody, finding sufficient cooperative parenting history, but denied the applicant's request for equal parenting time, emphasizing the child's need for stability and consistency over the proposed unpredictable schedule.

The existing parenting schedule was continued, and a divorce was granted.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the child to Dubai, alleging the respondent mother abducted the child to Ontario.

At a case conference, the court determined procedural steps for the upcoming motion.

The court scheduled a five-day summary trial for January 2020, denying the mother's request for a later date to accommodate witnesses from Iran, emphasizing the need for expedition in alleged child abduction cases.

The court also denied requests for pre-hearing questioning, a court-appointed expert, and interim access, noting the latter was not properly before the court.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligations after paying for 28 years following a 21-year marriage.

The respondent, aged 72, planned to retire and rely primarily on his pension, which had already been equalized.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to increase support.

The court found that the respondent's retirement constituted a catastrophic change in circumstances and that continuing support from his equalized pension would amount to impermissible double dipping.

The respondent's motion was granted, terminating support via a step-down schedule, and the applicant's cross-motion was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion to increase his parenting time with the parties' daughter.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, relying on two separate, unfounded allegations of child abuse she had reported to the police and CAS.

A section 30 assessor recommended a gradual increase in the respondent's parenting time and joint custody.

The court found the assessor's report to be probative and held that increasing the respondent's parenting time was in the child's best interests and in furtherance of the maximum contact principle.

The court ordered a gradual increase in the respondent's parenting time but declined to change interim custody at this stage.

The applicant sought enforcement of a separation agreement requiring sale or transfer of the matrimonial home and payment of the net sale proceeds to him.

The respondent sought to set aside the agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act on grounds of alleged non-disclosure, duress, inadequate legal advice, and post-agreement cohabitation.

The court rejected each ground, finding the respondent understood and negotiated the agreement, had legal advice, and failed to prove any material non-disclosure or reconciliation.

The court ordered sale of the matrimonial home with net sale proceeds to the applicant and awarded damages of $125,000 for loss caused by the respondent's registration of a later mortgage in breach of the agreement.

The moving party mother brought a motion to change a final consent order regarding parenting and child support.

She sought full custody, retroactive and ongoing child support, and payment of section 7 expenses, arguing a material change in circumstances because the adult child and minor child were residing primarily with her.

The court found a material change in circumstances, ordered the responding party father to pay his share of section 7 expenses, ongoing and retroactive child support, and varied the residential schedule to reflect the children's actual living arrangements.

A case conference was held to schedule documentary and oral discoveries.

The parties agreed to exchange Affidavits of Documents by September 30, 2019, and to conduct examinations for discovery in November 2019.

The court noted a potential issue regarding Schedule B documents that may require a further case conference if unresolved.

The applicant and respondent each brought motions regarding interim parenting, child support, spousal support, interim costs, and drug testing.

The parties agreed to temporary joint custody, but disputed the parenting schedule.

The court ordered the continuation of the current fixed access schedule due to the respondent's recent completion of a drug rehabilitation program and criminal charges.

The court determined the respondent's income for child support purposes based on his base salary, excluding historical discretionary bonuses paid by his father's company.

The applicant's requests for interim spousal support and interim costs were dismissed.

Both parties were ordered to undergo bi-monthly drug screening for six months.

The applicant sought orders finding the respondent in contempt of eight separate court orders and declaring him a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent requested an adjournment, which was denied, and then abruptly left the courtroom, failing to participate further.

The court found the respondent in contempt, noting his persistent and willful breaches of child support obligations, cost orders, involvement of children in litigation, and failure to comply with therapeutic mandates.

As a remedy for contempt, the respondent's pleadings were struck.

The court also declared the respondent a vexatious litigant due to his history of persistent, groundless proceedings, re-litigation of settled issues, and misuse of judicial resources, precluding him from instituting further proceedings without leave, with one specific exception for an existing civil case.

The plaintiff sought a Mareva injunction against the Atkinson defendants (Paul Atkinson, Colin Grieve, and Professional Firefighters Advocates Inc.) due to alleged misappropriation of funds intended for the plaintiff's Retiree's Cancer Claim Fund.

The court found a strong prima facie case of tortious and fraudulent conduct, including false misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and conspiracy.

Evidence indicated the defendants had taken steps to dissipate assets by transferring residential properties to their spouses shortly after the plaintiff's demand letter and notice of motion.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, with provisions for the defendants' living and legal expenses.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders against the respondent for consistent and significant non-disclosure, including a monetary penalty and striking pleadings.

The court found the respondent in breach of a consent order and prior disclosure obligations, which had been outstanding for approximately four years.

The court held that it has jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules, specifically Rule 1(8), to impose a monetary penalty for non-compliance with disclosure orders, even without a finding of contempt, in exceptional and egregious circumstances to enforce its process and deter future breaches.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with outstanding obligations by a specified date, failing which a daily monetary penalty of $500 would accrue to the applicant.

The applicant was also granted liberty to renew the motion to strike the respondent's pleadings if non-compliance continued.

This costs endorsement addresses the payment of a $750.00 costs award previously granted to the applicant for an unnecessary motion.

The applicant sought to have these costs paid personally by the respondent's former litigation guardian, Mary Keogh, or her counsel, T. Viresh Fernando.

Applying the two-part test from Galganov v. Russell (Township), the court found that counsel's conduct did cause unnecessary costs but, applying the "extreme caution" principle from Young v. Young, declined to order personal costs against him.

However, the court ordered the former litigation guardian, Mary Keogh, to pay the $750.00 costs personally and forthwith, affirming that litigation guardians are responsible for costs awards against the special party they represent, especially when they take unreasonable positions.

This endorsement confirms Justice Diamond's appointment as the case management judge for the proceeding.

It addresses the scheduling of a long motion concerning jurisdiction (Ontario or Massachusetts) and a potential Hague Convention application for the return of children to Massachusetts.

The judge directs that the Hague Convention application should ideally proceed earlier and separately from the jurisdiction issue.

This costs endorsement followed a prior decision where the plaintiffs' action for breach of contract was dismissed due to a lack of proven damages, despite a finding of breach.

The court determined that the defendant, Grant Thornton LLP (GT), was the more successful party, notwithstanding some mixed success, as the plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and defamation were dismissed outright, and no remedy flowed from any of the plaintiffs' findings.

The defendant's offer to settle did not meet the requirements of Rule 49.10(2)(b), thus no costs consequences flowed from its non-acceptance.

Applying the "fair and reasonable" principle for fixing costs and considering Rule 57.01 factors, including the moderate complexity and the $10 million claim, the court awarded GT partial indemnity costs in the all-inclusive amount of $175,000.00.

This case concerns motions regarding the mental capacity of the respondent, Nichola Feldman-Kiss, and the validity of an ex parte order appointing a litigation guardian.

The applicant, Greg Somers, sought to set aside an ex parte order that declared the respondent a special party and appointed Mary Keogh as her litigation guardian, and to compel the respondent to complete a previously agreed-upon settlement.

The respondent, through her litigation guardian, brought a new motion seeking the same relief as the ex parte order, but on notice and with new medical evidence.

The court set aside the ex parte order due to procedural improprieties and lack of full disclosure.

The court also dismissed the respondent's new motion, finding it to be an abuse of process.

Alternatively, even if not an abuse of process, the court found insufficient reliable evidence to displace the presumption of capacity and retroactively declare the respondent incapable at the time of the settlement.

The respondent brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the applicant in a family law proceeding, prior to the applicant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's corollary claims for spousal and child support, which were based on a separation agreement.

The applicant argued that the disclosure motion constituted an abuse of process and was premature.

The court found no abuse of process, but limited the scope of the disclosure.

It ordered the applicant to produce specific financial documents related to his financial worth and income as of the date of the separation agreement (June 25, 2015), deferring requests for post-agreement disclosure until the summary judgment motion on the agreement's validity is determined.

Following the release of trial reasons finding the defendant breached its contract but awarding no damages, the plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to amend the reasons.

The plaintiffs sought nominal damages, special damages, damages for the purchase of new shares, and damages for loss of chance.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that nominal damages were inappropriate where general damages were unproven, special damages lacked causal link, and the other claims were either already disposed of or not raised at trial.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for conspiracy to injure and intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff, former CEO of a company in receivership, alleged the defendants conspired to breach contracts to harm him personally.

The court struck the conspiracy claim because it failed to explain how the corporate defendant would agree to act against its own interests.

The court also struck the intentional interference claim because a prior release agreement meant the third-party company had no actionable civil wrong against the defendants.

Both claims were struck with leave to amend.