Jason W. Gottlieb

The plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw alleged admissions in their statement of claim and to amend it, specifically regarding whether plaintiff Mekhaeel signed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS).

The defendant opposed the withdrawal of the admission concerning paragraph 4.

The court applied the three-part test for withdrawing an admission, finding that while a triable issue existed, the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the change in position and that significant prejudice to the defendant, uncompensable by costs, would result due to the passage of time, the defendant's reliance on the original pleading, and potential limitation period issues for third-party claims.

The motion to withdraw the admission at paragraph 4 was dismissed, though an unopposed amendment to paragraph 2 was granted.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion to change a parenting order dated March 2, 2015 and a support order dated October 21, 2016.

The applicant (father) acted in person.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to change the parenting order but made retroactive adjustments to the support order, increasing the father's child support obligations by $6,293 and adjusting ongoing monthly payments.

The mother sought $5,000 plus HST in costs, and the father sought $5,000.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following the motion hearing.

The Applicant sought to dismiss or stay the Respondent's Motion to Change a final order due to the Respondent's chronic non-compliance with multiple prior court orders, including those for spousal support, interim disbursements, costs, disclosure, life insurance designation, and corporate share transfer.

The court found a consistent pattern of willful non-compliance and granted the Applicant's motion in part, staying the Respondent's Motion to Change until he complies with outstanding financial obligations not subject to FRO enforcement and all conduct-related orders.

The Applicant's motions for summary dismissal and security for costs were dismissed as premature or moot.

A motion to change a 2010 final custody and access order in a high-conflict family law matter involving a child born in 2005.

The mother sought to restrict the father's access to daytime visits only and sought a restraining order and police enforcement clause, citing the father's volatile temper, verbal abuse, and pattern of cancellations.

The father sought sole or joint custody and expanded overnight access.

The court found material changes in circumstances including the mother's mental health and addiction treatment in 2013, the father's pattern of access cancellations, and escalating conflict between the parties.

The court maintained sole custody with the mother while modifying access provisions to include alternate weekend overnight access and one midweek overnight per week.

The court declined to impose a police enforcement clause but granted a restraining order.

Child support was imputed at $30,000 annually.

This ruling addresses endorsements from August 25 and 26, 2016, and associated costs, as well as the father's cross-motion regarding payment of certain household expenses.

The court varied a previous order concerning matrimonial home expenses, setting child support, and making no order for spousal support or mortgage payments, but requiring the husband to continue home insurance and the mother to pay the mobile account.

The court also addressed costs, noting divided success but criticizing the mother's unilateral conduct in arranging counselling for the child without notice to the father.

The wife was ordered to pay the husband $1,500 in fixed costs from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The applicant mother sought an order to dispense with the respondent father's consent to sell their jointly owned residence and to strike his pleadings.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to dispense with the mother's consent to sell the residence, to have the mother found in contempt, and to vary or set aside an order that had denied him the right to be heard.

The court varied the order to allow the father to be heard, provided detailed directions for the sale of the matrimonial home, including a mechanism for the father to proceed unilaterally if the mother failed to cooperate.

The court also varied the child access order to introduce gradual overnight access for the father, noting the mother's unilateral actions regarding the child's healthcare and lack of support for the father-child relationship.

The mother's motion to strike pleadings was dismissed, and the contempt motions were adjourned sine die.

The applicant society brought a motion to dispense with service of protection application documents on the biological father of two children.

The court declined to dispense with service but instead granted an order for substituted service through the biological father's active Facebook account.

The court found that substituted service via Facebook was a reasonable and preferable method that would give the biological father the best opportunity to participate in the child protection proceedings while respecting privacy protections under the Child and Family Services Act.

In a high-conflict family law matter involving custody and access of a minor child, the mother brought a motion seeking to eliminate the father's mid-week access, regulate access transfer locations, obtain police enforcement of access terms, recover child support contributions for extraordinary expenses, and strike the father's pleadings for non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court granted a conditional opportunity for the father to comply with disclosure orders by December 22, 2015, dismissed the claim for section 7 expenses without prejudice, established specific transfer locations for access exchanges, declined to order police enforcement, and awarded costs of $750 to the mother for the disclosure non-compliance issue.

Following a spousal support variation proceeding, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

The moving party sought substantial costs relying on an offer to settle under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, while the responding party sought partial costs based on disclosure delays and litigation conduct.

The court held that the moving party could not rely on the offer to settle because it was not properly signed under Rule 18(4) and the result obtained was not as favourable as the offer.

Considering divided success, disclosure issues, litigation conduct, and the responding party’s financial disadvantage, the court nevertheless awarded the moving party partial costs.

The applicant mother sought spousal support from the respondent father, retroactive to January 2009.

The parties were married in 1985 and separated in May 2008.

The father had custody of two of their four children and was paying down substantial matrimonial debt through a Consumer Proposal.

The mother had a sporadic employment history and was receiving social assistance.

The court found that while the mother satisfied the threshold for entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and need-based grounds, the father's ongoing child support obligations and lack of ability to pay rendered him unable to provide spousal support.

The mother's claim was dismissed entirely, including the retroactive claim, due to her blameworthy delays in complying with disclosure orders.

This is a child protection status review proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

Two motions were heard: one by the maternal grandmother seeking to be added as a party to present an alternative placement plan for the children, and one by the father seeking to add the paternal grandparents as parties.

The children had been in the father's care subject to supervision orders since May 2011.

The court dismissed both motions but granted the paternal grandparents limited participation rights under subsection 39(3) of the Act as essential caregivers who had cared for the children continuously for the preceding six months.