Jason Gottlieb

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation and disclosure of real estate transactions regarding a property he previously occupied.

The defendant second mortgagee brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action against it and for a judicial sale of the property.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding damages were an adequate remedy and the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate a prior default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the action against it on the basis of res judicata and ordering a judicial sale of the property.

The Applicant sought costs following partial success on a motion to stay the Respondent's motion to change.

The Applicant claimed costs on a full recovery basis, arguing the Respondent acted in bad faith and that she beat her offer to settle.

The court rejected the bad faith argument and found the offer to settle was not as favourable as the order obtained.

The court awarded the Applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, reduced to reflect her divided success, fixing the amount at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant sought costs following a 12-day family law trial where there was divided success.

The applicant claimed costs on a full recovery basis, alleging the respondent acted in bad faith regarding financial disclosure and purported loans.

The court found the respondent's conduct came close to bad faith but was driven by self-interest rather than a devious intent to harm, thus rejecting the claim for full recovery costs.

Considering the divided success, the respondent's poor conduct, and a partially successful offer to settle by the respondent, the court fixed costs payable to the applicant at $20,000.

No costs were awarded for earlier urgent motions.

In this divorce application, the parties sought sole custody of their young child, equalization of net family property, and spousal and child support.

The respondent father argued the applicant mother's mental illness rendered her unfit for sole custody, while the mother raised concerns about parental alienation by the father's family.

The court ordered a shared parenting arrangement with divided decision-making authority, finding the mother's mental health was stable and posed no risk.

For equalization, the court found that $176,000 advanced to the father by his own father were gifts, not loans, resulting in an equalization payment of $114,261.02 to the mother.

Claims for spousal and child support were dismissed after imputing income to both parties.

The parties submitted written costs submissions following a consent order.

The court reviewed the Family Law Rules and principles for awarding costs in family law matters.

Because the parties did not reserve the right to request costs when they entered into the consent order, the court found it inappropriate to make a costs award.

No costs were ordered.

A mother appealed a child protection summary judgment that found the child to be in need of protection and placed the child in the care of a child protection society as a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, misapprehended the evidence under s. 37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, and erred in denying access under s. 59(2.1).

The court held that the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test under rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and carefully reviewed extensive largely unopposed evidence demonstrating significant parenting risks and inability to meet the child’s needs.

Fresh evidence regarding the mother’s updated plan of care did not sufficiently address the safety concerns identified in the original decision.

The court deferred to the motion judge’s findings and upheld the Crown wardship and no‑access order.