Julius Dawn

The defendants brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs' second reply pleading and to revise the litigation timetable.

The court found that paragraphs responding to unamended portions of the amended statement of defence were improper, relying on Van Huizen v Trisura, and that many allegations improperly pleaded evidence and legal argument contrary to Rule 25.06.

Paragraphs 5-7, 8-32, and 45-51 of the second reply were struck.

The court revised the timetable on consent, assumed case management, and barred further motions without leave.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiffs, Yusuf Ebadi and Hasina Ebadi, brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add a claim for loss of equity, seeking an additional $610,000 in damages.

The defendants did not object to the amendments provided the plaintiffs gave relevant disclosure, reattended at examinations for discovery, and paid the defendants’ costs thrown away.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim and set a timetable for further steps, including disclosure and discoveries.

The court found the defendants were entitled to costs thrown away in the amount of $15,000, due to the expanded scope of litigation and the need to duplicate certain steps.

The timetable for next steps was set out, and the parties were directed to adhere to it.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following a successful motion for disclosure.

The Applicant sought substantial costs, arguing the Respondent's conduct was unreasonable and citing an unaccepted offer to settle.

The Respondent contended the requested amount was excessive and that prior costs issues had been resolved.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court considered the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour.

The court found the Respondent's counsel's conduct particularly egregious regarding communication and awarded the Applicant $8,000 in costs.

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to refused discovery questions and to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings in a civil action arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The court largely granted the defendants' requests, ordering the plaintiff to provide further financial documentation and answer questions related to damages and mitigation.

The court also authorized a further examination of the plaintiff for up to 2 hours and ordered an updated affidavit of documents to be addressed later.

Costs of the motion, and a previous reserved costs order, were fixed against the plaintiff.

The Applicant, Melissa Saunders, brought a motion seeking disclosure from the Respondent, Anthony Mineault, regarding the valuation of his interest in his law firm, QTMG LLP, and his income for spousal support purposes.

This motion followed a previous order where the Respondent was directed to provide a business valuation report.

The Respondent argued he lacked control over the firm's documents, relying on a corporate law precedent (Himel v. Greenberg) concerning a director's access to corporate information.

The court distinguished Himel, noting that the Respondent, as an equal partner in a limited liability partnership without a partnership agreement, had statutory access to the firm's books under the Partnership Act.

The court found the Respondent had not fulfilled his disclosure obligations and ordered him to provide the requested information and pay the cost of the Applicant's expert's production letter.

The issue of the full cost of the valuation report was reserved.

This is a continuation of a motion to vary child support provisions of a divorce judgment for adult children pursuing advanced post-secondary education.

The court determined the mother's continuing obligation for child support, adjusted base support retroactively based on income changes, and calculated extraordinary expenses for education.

It also addressed a significant overpayment by the mother, which is to be used as a credit against future obligations.

Support for one child (Étienne) was terminated, while support for the other (Jeanne) was continued under specific conditions.

The respondent moved for interim spousal support, while the applicant cross-moved for the sale of the matrimonial home and summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claim for an unequal division of sale proceeds.

The court granted interim spousal support to the respondent, ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, and dismissed the applicant's motion for partial summary judgment, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the oral agreement for unequal division of home proceeds.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking an increase in child support, while the respondent mother sought to terminate support for their two adult children pursuing master's and PhD degrees.

The court held that given the family's high income and academic expectations, the children remained dependents entitled to support.

However, the court ruled that once a child moves away from home, monthly support should be reduced and all living expenses treated as extraordinary expenses, offset by the child's own resources.

The court also applied a three-year average to the mother's fluctuating professional income.

The applicant father sought costs for three separate attendances in a high-conflict custody and access dispute.

The court found that the respondent mother had acted in bad faith by systematically frustrating the father's access, breaching court orders, and recklessly submitting false evidence regarding a proposed assessor.

The court awarded the father costs for all three events, including full indemnity costs for the final motion due to the mother's bad faith, totaling $51,750.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of court for breaching a previous order regarding his access to their two children.

The court found that the mother had systematically frustrated the father's access, delayed a court-ordered custody assessment, and inappropriately delegated the decision to attend access visits to their seven-year-old child.

Applying the principles from Godard v. Godard, the court held that a parent must take concrete measures to apply normal parental authority to ensure compliance with an access order.

The court found the mother in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, but adjourned the penalty phase to allow her an opportunity to purge her contempt and to obtain updated reports from the Children's Aid Society.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the respondent's urgent motion for leave to address security concerns during supervised access.

The applicant, having successfully opposed the urgent motion, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of an offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court found the urgent motion issue was not complex or difficult and that the applicant's offer to settle was a significant factor.

The court awarded the applicant costs, but reduced the claimed amount due to excessive time spent on client communication and review, fixing the total costs at $17,396.27.

The court issued an amended endorsement concerning the appointment of a psychologist for a family assessment under section 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Initially, the parties could not agree on an assessor, leading to submissions on proposed candidates.

One party alleged parental alienation and proposed a specific psychologist, while the other party alleged domestic violence and proposed a different psychologist, raising concerns about the first psychologist's potential bias due to their involvement with parental alienation concepts.

The original decision was based on information later found to be untrue.

Subsequently, the parties reached an agreement on an alternative assessor, rendering the court's prior determination on the initial choice moot.

The endorsement was amended to reflect this development and remove references to the now-moot appointment.

The respondent mother sought leave to proceed on an urgent basis with a motion to address the level of security for children during supervised access visits with the applicant father, citing new criminal charges against the father, home break-ins, and alleged death threats.

The court applied the two-part test for urgency from *Rosen v. Rosen*, considering the availability of a case conference date and efforts to negotiate a short-term resolution.

The court found that the mother failed to satisfy both parts of the test and that the circumstances were not so extreme as to warrant immediate intervention, especially given the mother's prior willingness to continue access arrangements despite some of the alleged events.

The motion for urgency was dismissed, and the parties were directed to address the issues at the scheduled case conference.

The applicant sought relief concerning an arbitration agreement and prior separation agreements, requesting that an ongoing arbitration be converted into a Superior Court proceeding or alternatively that the court appoint a replacement arbitrator after the original arbitrator’s death.

The parties submitted minutes of settlement and a draft consent order.

The court held that the Arbitration Act limits judicial intervention in matters subject to arbitration and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, including incorporating the settlement terms into a court order.

The parties had already reached minutes of settlement and could execute an amending agreement privately.

The court therefore declined to make any order while noting that the parties could return for appointment of a replacement arbitrator if necessary.

The parties cohabited for 15 years in a joint family venture, during which the applicant contributed significant funds and labour to the respondent's real estate business.

Following separation, the applicant sought compensation for unjust enrichment and spousal support.

The court found the respondent had unjustly retained a disproportionate share of the accumulated wealth and awarded the applicant $548,880 for unjust enrichment.

The court also imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the respondent and awarded lump sum spousal support of $72,600.

Due to the respondent's history of non-compliance with court orders, the court granted vesting orders over three properties and a pension annuity to secure payment.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt of court and an order striking the respondent’s pleadings for repeated breaches of family court orders and failures of financial disclosure in a property dispute following a lengthy common-law relationship.

The alleged breaches included failure to pay proceeds from a condominium sale into court, the unauthorized sale of an aircraft despite a non‑dissipation order, and inadequate accounting for the disposition of several properties.

The court declined to make a contempt finding, emphasizing that contempt is reserved for the clearest cases and that remedial alternatives should be preferred in family proceedings.

Instead, the court found the respondent had failed to make good faith efforts to comply with court orders and provide proper disclosure.

As a remedial measure, the respondent was ordered to pay $80,000 into court and pay costs, failing which his pleadings would be struck and his participation at trial restricted.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking further financial disclosure relating to the respondent’s real estate transactions and financial dealings.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to vary an earlier interim order by relaxing a non-dissipation order, ordering the immediate sale of all property, and reducing interim spousal support based on a lower asserted income.

The court found substantial evidence that the respondent had previously underreported income and exercised significant control over assets, justifying strict disclosure and asset preservation measures.

The court ordered the respondent to provide a detailed accounting tracing proceeds from several property sales and rejected the requested variation to the interim support and asset restrictions.

The respondent’s cross-motion was dismissed and the disclosure order granted.

Following earlier reasons and an addendum determining parenting time and child support under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the parties were unable to agree on the wording of a paragraph in the final order addressing the structure of child support payments.

The dispute concerned whether the order should itemize numerous categories of child expenses or provide a simplified breakdown reflecting the court’s quantified findings from trial.

The court determined that an overly detailed breakdown would likely create continuing disputes and unnecessary accounting between the parties.

A revised paragraph was imposed that fixed the respondent’s monthly child support obligation at $5,149.62, including a housing contribution, and categorized expenses more generally while allowing variation only by agreement or motion to change.

The court also ordered both parties to maintain equal life insurance policies of $300,000 as security for child support and declined to mandate RESP contributions.

Following earlier reasons terminating spousal support retroactively, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant, as the successful party, sought substantial costs relying on two settlement offers that were more favourable than the ultimate result and alleging unreasonable litigation conduct by the respondent.

The respondent argued that costs should be significantly reduced due to financial hardship and the alleged simplicity of the matter.

The court found that the respondent’s conduct unnecessarily increased litigation costs but expressed concern that the amount claimed was excessive for what was essentially a straightforward proceeding.

Costs were fixed globally at $25,000 payable by the respondent within 60 days.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, sought costs on a full indemnity basis following a dispute with the condominium board over modifications to the courtyard.

The parties had reached minutes of settlement, which the board subsequently attempted to resile from, necessitating a motion to enforce the settlement.

The court found that the board acted in bad faith in attempting to resile from the agreement.

Costs were awarded to the applicants, with the condominium corporation ordered to pay the costs of the injunction and application, while the board members were ordered to personally pay the costs of the motion to enforce the settlement.