Jorge A. Cartaya

In a family law proceeding involving cryptocurrency assets, the applicant brought a long motion regarding disclosure.

The respondents sought leave under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to file an expert affidavit after having already cross-examined the applicant on her motion materials.

The court dismissed the request for leave, finding the respondents failed to show the evidence responded to a matter raised on cross-examination or provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The court also ruled on several refusals from questioning, ordering the respondents to answer some questions while upholding other refusals.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the production of a corporate server (Decentral Server) for disclosure purposes, arguing the respondents had not adequately searched it.

This request had been previously dismissed by Justice Kiteley.

The applicant sought to revisit the prior decision, asserting new material facts, including the respondent's alleged failure to comply with an offer to conduct further searches and new expert evidence on e-discovery methods.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the alleged new facts were either not fundamentally different from what was previously argued or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the original motion.

The court affirmed that interlocutory orders are binding unless new, material, and previously undiscoverable facts are presented.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Kiteley J. dated December 10, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the corporate respondents in the fixed amount of $5,000, while no costs were awarded to the individual respondent as no costs outline was filed.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for interim spousal support and disclosure of cryptocurrency holdings.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found the applicant beat her offer regarding spousal support and met her offer regarding native file format disclosure.

The applicant was awarded costs of $104,533 on a substantial recovery basis.

The corporate respondents were successful on a discrete issue regarding a server and were awarded costs of $12,600 on a partial indemnity basis, to be paid from the applicant's costs award.

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of a lawyer's file, arguing she had an explicit or implicit solicitor-client relationship with him, or alternatively, that the respondents waived privilege.

The lawyer had acted for the respondent and the corporate respondents during a period when the parties were allegedly involved in a joint family venture involving cryptocurrency.

The court found the applicant failed to establish a solicitor-client relationship, as the few documents she relied on were insufficient to show she was led to believe he was her lawyer.

The court also found no evidence that the respondents waived privilege.

Although the motion was dismissed, the court struck significant portions of the respondent's affidavit for relying on inadmissible hearsay in breach of the Family Law Rules.

This motion concerned a mobility dispute where the respondent father sought an order for the applicant mother to re-establish residency with the child in Brampton, while the applicant mother sought approval for her relocation to Toronto.

The court, applying the 'best interests of the child' principle and factors from Gordon v Goertz and Plumley v Plumley, found compelling reasons for the mother's move, including childcare and financial benefits.

The court dismissed the father's motion and permitted the child to reside with the mother in Toronto, determining that the relocation was in the child's best interests despite arguments regarding the status quo.

A father brought a motion for temporary custody of two young children and supervised access for the mother, following the mother's admission of alcoholism and evidence of cocaine use during a binge in late April 2020.

The mother brought a cross-motion for sole custody or alternatively, no order at that stage.

The court found that while the case was in its early stages and credibility issues regarding domestic violence allegations remained unresolved, the mother's substance misuse and the concerning circumstances warranted intervention.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order but ordered that the children remain with the father on a temporary without prejudice basis, with the mother having supervised access only.

The court appointed the Children's Lawyer and directed that the ruling be sent to child welfare agencies due to concerns about the mother's parenting capacity and the involvement of a former addictions counsellor in a romantic relationship with the mother.

During the COVID-19 court suspension, the respondent sought an urgent access motion for their baby daughter, and the applicant filed a cross-motion for temporary custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and property relief.

The court applied a higher urgency test based on the Superior Court of Justice Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed as not meeting the urgency criteria, which required risks akin to child safety or well-being, or imminent financial harm.

The court emphasized the importance of parental negotiation to resolve access issues, especially during the crisis, citing recent jurisprudence on maintaining contact with both parents.