Jessica Marie Abou-Eid

The applicant sought enforcement of an unpaid net family property equalization payment by obtaining control over the sale of the respondent's home.

The respondent sought an adjournment and relied in part on a pending WSIB claim, while the record also disclosed ongoing child support arrears owed by the applicant.

The court denied the adjournment, confirmed the applicant's entitlement to recover the equalization payment, and ordered an expedited sale process with specified appraisal, listing, access, vacancy, carrying-cost, and trust terms.

The judge remained seized to supervise implementation and any further issues arising from the sale.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court of Justice in order to pursue substantially higher damages.

The action originally sought damages within the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction, but the plaintiff later asserted losses exceeding $400,000 arising from the repossession of a leased truck and resulting business losses and health consequences.

The court considered the principles governing transfers from Small Claims Court, including the court’s inherent jurisdiction to permit a transfer where appropriate.

Relying on authorities addressing when a plaintiff may pursue the claim in its “real dimensions,” the court held that the circumstances justified a transfer despite the plaintiff’s earlier choice of forum.

The motion was granted, but costs were awarded to the defendant because the need for the motion arose from the plaintiff’s own procedural error.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to eliminate child support arrears and ongoing support obligations, deny spousal support to the respondent, enforce payment of an equalization amount, compel mortgage disclosure, and dismiss the respondent’s cross‑motion.

The respondent sought enforcement of child support, a stay of the equalization payment due to financial hardship, clarification of earlier costs awards, and spousal support.

The court fixed child support arrears based on prior orders, ordered ongoing offset child support, and directed disclosure of mortgage statements.

Arrears were set off against the equalization payment owed to the applicant.

The court temporarily stayed enforcement of the equalization payment to allow the respondent time to sell the matrimonial home and denied the claim for spousal support.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that allowed the accused's sentence appeal and remitted the matter for a fresh sentencing hearing.

The summary conviction appeal judge found the trial judge erred by refusing to permit cross-examination on the complainants' victim impact statements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the summary conviction appeal judge lacked jurisdiction to remit the matter for a fresh sentencing hearing.

Furthermore, the Court found no error by the trial judge, as the accused failed to identify disputable facts in the victim impact statements to justify cross-examination.

The original sentence was restored.