Joel Moldaver

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that the plaintiff had obtained ex parte on a property.

The CPL was based on a 2010 Rent-to-Own Agreement, which required the plaintiff to make payments beyond rent and arrange financing within three to five years.

The plaintiff failed to comply with these terms and did not pursue the purchase option for many years.

The court found no reasonable claim to an interest in land and no triable issue, noting that any alleged improvements could be addressed by way of damages.

The motion to discharge the CPL was granted, and the court invited costs submissions from the defendant.

This motion concerned the interpretation of "spouse" under section 29 of the Family Law Act, specifically the phrase "are the parents of a child." The applicant, Mr. Elkind, sought a declaration that he and the respondent, Ms. Addeo, were not spouses, arguing their child's death before separation negated spousal status.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the phrase means two people who have a child together while cohabiting in a relationship of some permanence are spouses, regardless of whether the child is alive at the date of separation.

The decision emphasized that economic consequences and mutual commitment arising from the decision to have a child persist even if the child does not survive.

The Applicant sought costs totaling $165,618.82 after a six-day trial on financial issues, including income determination, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The Respondent argued for divided success and each party bearing their own costs.

The court found the Applicant marginally more successful, particularly regarding the date of separation and the valuation of the Respondent's business, where the Respondent's positions were less reasonable.

Neither party's offers to settle were severable, complicating the assessment of success.

Considering the reasonableness of the parties' conduct and the proportionality of costs, the court awarded the Applicant $30,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable from the Respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds, noting it was not a case for full recovery.

The co-respondents, Louis Montello and Las Princesas Corp., brought a motion under Rule 25(19)(d) of the Family Law Rules to set aside specific paragraphs of a final order obtained by Monique Abitbol without notice.

The impugned paragraphs disentitled Montello and Las Princesas from further participation and declared them to be holding the "Golden Beach" property in trust for Alberto Benarroch.

Applying the factors from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen, the court found that while there was no compelling excuse for the co-respondents' default in filing an Answer, they had an arguable defense on the merits.

The court determined that allowing the ex-parte declaratory relief to stand would cause disproportionate prejudice to the co-respondents and undermine the integrity of justice.

The motion was granted, setting aside the contested paragraphs, with terms including payment of prior costs and an expedited timetable for the proceeding.

The applicant mother sought full recovery costs of $62,939.39 after being largely successful in custody and parenting motions.

The respondent father sought costs payable in cause or limited to $10,500.

The court found the father acted in bad faith due to his conduct, including involving the child in litigation, non-compliance with orders, and making a baseless insinuation of judicial bias.

Despite the mother not making an offer to settle and her counsel's time appearing excessive, the court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, reflecting disapproval of the father's conduct and a discount for the mother's omissions.

The request to enforce the award as a support order was declined.

The Applicant Father brought a motion seeking a change in custody, supervised access for the Respondent Mother, and a s. 30 assessment, primarily due to the Mother's highly inappropriate and vulgar conduct involving their child during a phone call.

The Mother admitted her conduct was inexcusable and had since enrolled in anger management and therapeutic counselling, seeking dismissal of the Father's motion and for the Minutes of Settlement to be made a court order.

The court dismissed the Father's motion, finding that while the Mother's conduct was deplorable, it appeared to be an isolated incident.

The court emphasized the importance of upholding the recent Minutes of Settlement and the potential for further litigation to negatively impact the children.

Specific orders were issued to prevent future inappropriate conduct, but the existing parenting arrangements were maintained, and a s. 30 assessment was not ordered at that time.