J. Lagoudis

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, child support arrears, and section 7 expenses, seeking to impute an income of $78,000 to the respondent.

The court found the respondent had unexplained bank deposits in 2014 and imputed his income at $64,589.33 for that year.

For 2015, the court found the respondent intentionally underemployed and imputed an income of $28,080.00 based on his capacity to work full-time.

Interim child support and section 7 arrears were calculated at $8,364.97, which were satisfied by funds previously released from the sale of the matrimonial home.

Judgment creditors brought an application seeking approval of a proposed agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property or, alternatively, the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution to facilitate enforcement of a monetary judgment.

The court reviewed the governing principles for appointing an equitable receiver, including the requirement for special circumstances where traditional execution mechanisms would be ineffective or impractical.

The evidence demonstrated that the judgment debtors failed to comply with settlement timelines requiring sale or refinancing of the property and did not adequately cooperate with the sales process.

Given delays, conflicting interests among stakeholders, and concerns that the existing listing process did not satisfy the Soundair principles for court-supervised asset sales, the court concluded that a receiver-controlled sales process was necessary.

A receiver was therefore appointed with authority to market and sell the property, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicants.

The plaintiffs, Nashaat and Taghreed Aly, claimed a partnership interest in a family grocery business, Nader Halal, operated by Adel Tohamy.

The court found a valid oral agreement from 2001 granting the Alys a 20% interest.

In a related family law application, Adel's former wife, Naiema, sought to set aside two separation agreements that released her claims to the family businesses and spousal support.

The court set aside both agreements under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to Adel's deliberate failure to disclose significant assets, unconscionability, and duress.

The court also found the defendants engaged in spoliation of evidence by destroying financial records and ordered the appointment of a receiver over the businesses pending the damages phase of the trial.

The moving party sought an order permitting him to secure a line of credit or mortgage on the jointly owned matrimonial home for $400,000 to fund legal fees for an upcoming trial involving family and corporate claims.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court found this to be a highly unusual case where encumbering the matrimonial home was justified, given the substantial other assets available to satisfy any potential judgment for the respondent.

The court granted the motion but limited the encumbrance to $250,000, subject to specific terms including that the funds be paid directly into counsel's trust account.

The court provided procedural directions for a consolidated trial involving corporate oppression claims, family law claims, and disputes over alleged ownership interests in several companies and properties.

Multiple parties proposed competing structures for the order in which the issues should be tried.

The court held that the determination of ownership interests in the companies and properties must occur first before any remedies could be considered, as premature remedies could prejudice other parties’ claims.

The court rejected a proposal to resolve one party’s oppression action in its entirety before the others and instead structured the trial into staged phases addressing ownership, family law and corporate claims, and finally remedies.

The court also imposed strict deadlines for motions, disclosure, and examinations prior to trial.

The court addressed three related proceedings involving family law claims and corporate oppression claims concerning ownership and profits of several closely held companies.

The issues included whether a former spouse retained a share interest in corporate entities following separation agreements and whether other parties were entitled to equity interests or damages relating to the same companies.

The court determined that the proceedings involved overlapping factual issues concerning share ownership, corporate value, and entitlement to profits.

To avoid inconsistent findings, duplication of evidence, and unnecessary costs, the court ordered that the three proceedings be tried together as a single consolidated trial under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Procedural directions were issued governing pleadings, motions, and scheduling of the unified trial.