Jerald J.D. MacKenzie

The appellants, Stewart Wilson and Elizabeth Wilson, appealed a motion judge's order dismissing two of their actions, one against Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari and another against Abrahams LLP.

The respondents sought dismissal of the appeal under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was an abuse of process given the appellants' history of vexatious litigation and non-compliance with court orders.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal to be an abuse of process, reflecting frivolous or vexatious allegations and a continuation of issues previously struck by the court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This decision provides case management directions in a complex, multi-action family law matter.

The court addressed the status of an appeal and enforcement of previous judgments regarding equalization and spousal support, noting that payments had been made.

It granted counsel's motion to get off the record and set a timetable for future motions concerning a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), leave to bring tort actions (abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental suffering), and spousal support arrears.

The court emphasized that previously decided matters, including equalization, were final and not open for re-argument.

Strict communication protocols with the court were reiterated, with a warning against contempt.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) brought an application for immediate possession of a condominium due to default on a charge.

The registered owner, Sandra Andrade, and an occupant, Sesanarine Singh, are involved in a separate fraud dispute over the property.

Singh claims beneficial ownership via a trust agreement and argues TD had actual notice of his interest, which would affect TD's priority.

The court found triable issues regarding Singh's beneficial interest and, crucially, whether TD had actual notice of it.

The application for immediate possession was not granted; instead, the court directed a trial of an issue solely on the question of TD's actual notice.

Interim orders were made for Singh to make ongoing mortgage and condo fee payments, and case conferences were directed for both the TD-Singh dispute and the Andrade-Singh dispute.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario summarily dismissed an appeal brought by the appellant, Stewart Wilson, under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent, Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari, requested the dismissal, arguing the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the appeal, stemming from long-standing, acrimonious litigation, was an attempt to relitigate issues previously decided and to indirectly participate in a trial where the appellant's pleadings had been struck due to contempt.

The court concluded that allowing the appeal to proceed would be an abuse of process, citing the appellant's history of wasteful litigation, failure to pay costs, and relitigation of settled issues.

The moving party, Stewart Wilson, sought an extension of time to appeal a May 2021 judgment that ordered him to pay substantial spousal support, an equalization payment, and costs.

This judgment was rendered after an uncontested trial, as Mr. Wilson's pleadings had been struck due to contempt for failing to provide financial disclosure.

Mr. Wilson had also brought a separate motion under Rule 59.06(2) alleging the May 2021 judgment was obtained by fraud, which was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the proposed appeal was from an unopposed order and that the grounds for appeal were duplicative of the already litigated Rule 59.06 motion, which would create a multiplicity of proceedings contrary to the interests of justice.

This appeal concerned whether the validity of a marriage contract could be re-litigated between parties embroiled in multiple, long-standing family, corporate, and bankruptcy law actions.

The appellant sought to raise the issue of the marriage contract's validity, arguing it was not definitively determined in prior contempt proceedings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's finding that the issue was integral to previous decisions and that allowing its re-litigation would constitute an abuse of process, especially given the appellant's failure to appeal earlier orders.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a motion to change where the father successfully obtained an earlier termination date for child support than the mother had agreed to, both parties sought costs.

The court found the father was the successful party, as he was forced to bring the motion and achieved a better result than the mother's position.

After considering the parties' offers to settle and the time spent, the court awarded the father costs of $3,000 on a partial indemnity basis, to be set off against any amounts he owed the mother.

Following a decision on a motion to change terminating the father's child support obligations, both parties sought costs.

The father sought full indemnity costs of $7,006, while the mother sought full indemnity costs of $4,902.72.

The court found the father was the successful party, as he obtained an earlier termination date than the mother had offered.

Considering the offers to settle and the time spent, the court awarded the father partial indemnity costs fixed at $3,000.

The father brought a motion to change a child support order dated August 8, 2016, seeking to reduce his monthly support obligation from $773 to $150 per month based on claimed income of $8,652 per year, and to rescind all accumulated arrears.

The mother cross-moved to dismiss the motion and to increase support based on imputed income of $83,517 per year.

The court found the father intentionally underemployed, rejected his claims of medical disability, found his education/retraining plan unreasonable and unsupported, and determined the father had engaged in intentional deception and gamesmanship throughout the proceedings.

The court imputed income of $59,491 per year retroactive to March 17, 2015, resulting in increased monthly support obligations and a conduct order restricting future motions without court permission.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a divorce judgment from February 2013, alleging non-service of the divorce application and seeking an equalization of net family properties.

The court found that the affidavit of service was false, but there was no evidence the applicant knew of the fraud.

The court determined that the parties had separated much earlier than the respondent claimed, validating the basis for the divorce.

The respondent failed to act promptly upon learning of the divorce and provided no adequate explanation for the significant delay (at least 18 months, more likely three years) in bringing the motion.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, noting that any claim for equalization under the Family Law Act would require a separate motion for an extension of time.