Jana Steele

In an uncontested trial, the applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and child support for the parties' five-year-old child.

The respondent father, who resides in Qatar or Morocco, did not participate.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making and primary residence, noting she had been the primary caregiver since birth.

The court also dispensed with the respondent's consent for travel and passport applications.

Income of $44,937 was imputed to the respondent based on his historical income as a firefighter in Qatar, the lack of personal income tax there, and employment benefits, resulting in a child support order of $417 per month.

A divorce order was also granted.

The moving parties, six limited partners holding 54.5% of the shares in a family limited partnership, sought leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of the limited partnership and related corporate entities against the general partner, its sole director, and other parties.

The court held that while there is no statutory right for limited partners to bring a derivative action under the Limited Partnerships Act, the common law fraud exception to the rule in Foss v. Harbottle permits such an action where the general partner is the alleged wrongdoer.

Leave was granted to bring the derivative action on behalf of the limited partnership against the general partner and its director, but denied against third parties and on behalf of the underlying corporate entities.

The applicant proceeded with an uncontested trial seeking a divorce, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and a permanent restraining order.

The respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

The court imputed an annual income of $72,800 to the respondent based on his profession as an electrician and ordered him to pay spousal support of $495 per month for six years, noting his immigration sponsorship of the applicant.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $59,517.40, issued a permanent restraining order due to the respondent's threatening behaviour, and awarded full indemnity costs of $45,762.57 against the respondent for bad faith conduct.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking to find the applicant father in breach of previous non-dissipation and disclosure orders, to impute his income for child support purposes, to summarily dismiss his spousal support claim, and to order reimbursement for post-separation household expenses.

The court found no breach of the previous orders.

The court declined to impute income, finding the father's reduced income from his restaurant business was due to pandemic-related closures and not intentional underemployment.

The court also refused to summarily dismiss the spousal support claim, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, and deferred the issue of household expenses to the trial judge.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.

This trial addressed the sale of a jointly owned property (Yewfield Property), the sharing of Section 7 expenses for the parties' child, and the respondent's claim for unjust enrichment and a joint family venture interest in the applicant's investment properties.

The court ordered the sale of the Yewfield Property with vacant possession, dismissed the respondent's claims regarding the investment properties due to a lack of causal connection and absence of a joint family venture, and established a framework for sharing the child's Section 7 expenses.

No costs were awarded due to divided success and significant wasted court resources by both self-represented parties.

The moving party brought a motion for a finding that the responding party was in contempt of a prior consent order regarding the rental of jointly owned properties in Portugal.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to dismiss the contempt motion and argued that the Ontario court should decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens.

The court found that Portugal was the more convenient forum for issues related to the properties.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the moving party failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the responding party deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the order, as a power of attorney was not required to rent the properties.

The applicant sought to vary a 2015 final order concerning parenting time, holiday sharing, decision-making for extracurricular activities, and child support.

The respondent also sought changes to parenting and holiday schedules.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's age and increased parental conflict.

A new week-about parenting schedule was ordered with a specific carve-out for the applicant, and a comprehensive holiday schedule largely proposed by the respondent was adopted.

The applicant was granted final decision-making authority for extracurricular activities, with limitations, and the respondent was ordered to contribute to past and future special expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding income disparity, ordering prospective set-off child support from the respondent, but denied retroactive child support, considering the D.B.S. factors and the initial income parity.

This trial focused on financial issues following a marital breakdown, including income determination for support, child and spousal support quantum, and equalization of property.

The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property and a 50% interest in a condominium by way of constructive/resulting trust, while the applicant claimed significant post-separation adjustments.

The court imputed income to the applicant, found the respondent entitled to both compensatory and needs-based spousal support, and granted her a 50% interest in the condominium proceeds.

The request for an unequal division of net family property was denied, and the applicant's claims for post-separation adjustments were largely dismissed due to intertwined finances and lack of supporting evidence.

This case involved two consolidated actions arising from a failed joint real estate venture.

The plaintiff, 2270752 Ontario Inc., sued Baljit Dhaliwal for breach of trust for failing to return $600,000 advanced for the venture.

Concurrently, the plaintiff sought to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of Baljit Dhaliwal's matrimonial home to his wife, Arvinder Dhaliwal, alleging it was done to defeat creditors.

The court found Baljit Dhaliwal liable for breach of trust and ordered the return of the $600,000.

The court also found the transfer of the matrimonial home to be a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, citing multiple "badges of fraud" and set it aside.

The actions against Century 21 New Star Realty Inc. and Arvinder Dhaliwal (for the breach of trust claim) were dismissed, as they were not involved in the breach of trust or vicariously liable.

The plaintiff brought an action for professional negligence, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against the defendants, who acted as her paralegal consultants following two motor vehicle accidents in 2001.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to preserve the limitation periods for her accident benefits and tort claims.

The court found that the defendants were retained for the first accident but not the second.

Although the defendants breached the standard of care by failing to file a statement of claim and inform the plaintiff of limitation issues for the first accident, the court dismissed the action.

The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the defendants were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as she knew or ought to have known of the potential claim more than two years before commencing the action.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's injuries from the first accident did not meet the permanent serious impairment threshold under the Insurance Act.

The applicant father brought a motion for equal parenting time with the parties' six-year-old daughter and an order prohibiting the respondent mother from leaving the child unattended with a specific friend.

The court found that the previous interim consent order did not establish a status quo requiring a material change in circumstances to vary.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court ordered a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule, finding both parents capable and loving.

The request to restrict the mother's friend was dismissed as the allegations were unsubstantiated.

Following their separation, the parties disputed the ownership and value of their jointly built business, Holdco.

The applicant claimed he owned 70% of the common shares, while the respondent claimed a 50% ownership based on their post-separation conduct and equal dividend payments.

The court found the respondent owned 50% of the shares, noting that the corporate records were inaccurate and the applicant had treated the respondent as an equal owner.

The court also held that the claim was not statute-barred and valued the business at $10,800,000, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $5,400,000 for her shares.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for breaching an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a new build home.

The purchaser failed to close the transaction, alleging confusion and forgery regarding documents amending the purchase price to include selected upgrades.

The court found a valid and binding contract existed, which the purchaser breached.

The court also found the vendor reasonably mitigated its damages by reselling the property, and awarded damages to the vendor for the difference in sale price and carrying costs, net of the purchaser's forfeited deposit.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for parenting time with his two children, having been denied contact by the respondent mother since April 2021 following an alleged domestic assault.

The mother opposed in-person contact, citing the outstanding criminal charges and allegations of family violence.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, finding that the uncorroborated allegations did not justify denying the children time with their father.

The court ordered temporary supervised parenting time for the father, gradually stepping up to unsupervised access.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a Russian divorce order obtained by the respondent.

The applicant argued the divorce was invalid due to lack of proper service, lack of a real and substantial connection to Russia, and because it was obtained in bad faith to avoid Canadian spousal support obligations.

The court dismissed the arguments regarding service and connection, finding the applicant had notice and the parties maintained sufficient ties to Russia.

However, the court ordered a half-day trial to determine whether the respondent sought the foreign divorce specifically to avoid paying spousal support, which would violate public policy.

In additional reasons following a summary judgment motion regarding a commercial lease dispute, the court determined the quantum of damages owed to the plaintiff landlord.

The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend its pleadings to claim a higher pre-judgment interest rate, finding it would cause non-compensable prejudice as the request came after the summary judgment decision.

The court also reduced the plaintiff's claim for future rent after discovering the plaintiff had failed to disclose that the property was sold and demolished, terminating the rent obligation on the date a letter of intent for the sale was signed.

The plaintiff was awarded $199,136.01 in total damages for future rent and additional rent.

The defendants, the Law Society of Ontario and several of its employees, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, alleged that the defendants acted with malice and deliberately suppressed evidence during a disciplinary investigation against him.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there were genuine issues of credibility regarding what the defendants knew and when they knew it, which could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion even with enhanced fact-finding powers.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought an undefended motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagors following a default on a renewed mortgage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment for the principal, interest, and certain fees, while disallowing some administrative and prepayment fees.

The court also granted the plaintiff possession of the property and awarded fixed costs.

The plaintiff sued her insurer following a fire loss and a disputed appraisal process under section 128 of the Insurance Act.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion seeking to force the plaintiff to elect whether she was challenging the appraisal itself (which would require judicial review at the Divisional Court) or proceeding with the action.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding it was not brought promptly under Rule 2.02 and Rule 21.02, as the defendant had been aware of the jurisdictional issue since the outset of the litigation and had already participated in a summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff, a tow truck operator, sued for wrongful dismissal after being summarily terminated without notice following five and a half years of service.

The defendant employer alleged just cause, claiming the plaintiff stole gas and engaged in other misconduct.

The court found the employer failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities and failed to provide the plaintiff an opportunity to respond before termination.

The court also determined the plaintiff was an employee, not an independent contractor, and awarded six months' pay in lieu of notice plus unpaid vacation pay, totaling $19,860.75.