Who is Julie Evelyn Amourgis?

Julie Evelyn Amourgis is an Ontario lawyer (In Private Practice) with 3 court cases on record from 2013 to 2019.

What courts has Julie Evelyn Amourgis appeared in?

Julie Evelyn Amourgis has appeared in Superior Court of Justice, Court of Justice, with most appearances at the Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Julie Evelyn Amourgis handled?

Julie Evelyn Amourgis has 3 cases on record from 2013 to 2019.

What judges has Julie Evelyn Amourgis appeared before?

Julie Evelyn Amourgis has most frequently appeared before Justice Freya Kristjanson, Justice Irving André.

Julie Evelyn Amourgis | Lawyer | Julie Evelyn Amourgis

3 total

Lewis v. Silva, 2019 ONCJ 795

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $18,109.39 arising from her motion to change a final parenting order.

The applicant (father) requested nominal costs or payment at $50 per month.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained an order for supervised access after the father failed to file a response to the motion to change, failed to attend at Assignment Court and a settlement conference, and failed to pay prior costs orders.

The court awarded costs of $6,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, taking into account the father's limited financial means and his unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation.

ONCJNov 4, 2019

Respondent Counsel

Lin v. Ha, 2017 ONSC 6917

The respondent father moved to set aside a default judgment obtained after an uncontested trial, arguing he was unaware of the proceedings and had an arguable defense regarding a joint family venture and imputed income for child support.

The court found the father moved promptly, provided a plausible explanation for non-participation due to lack of notice, and demonstrated arguable defenses.

The court set aside the default judgment and associated costs, dismissing the applicant's cross-motion to compel compliance with the original order.

SCJNov 20, 2017

Respondent Counsel

Karunakaran v. Doe et al., 2013 ONSC 5693

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order permitting the plaintiff to amend a statement of claim to add them as defendants after the expiration of the limitation period.

The court considered whether there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision and whether the issue raised matters of sufficient importance under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff provided no evidence demonstrating reasonable diligence in identifying the proposed defendants prior to the expiry of the limitation period and no evidence of special circumstances justifying the amendment.

As a result, there was reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying order and the issue raised broader questions concerning limitation periods and amendments to pleadings.

Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was granted.

SCJSep 10, 2013