4 total
Substituted service on US resident ordered by mail, as email and social media violate Hague Convention.
The applicant brought a motion for substituted service on the respondent, who resides in the United States and was evading service.
The applicant proposed service by email and Facebook messenger.
The court noted that under the Hague Service Convention, service by email or social media is not authorized, but service by postal channels is permitted.
The court granted substituted service by regular first class and registered mail to the respondent's address in Texas.
The appellant was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs, enforceable as support payments.
This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent fixed costs of $20,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, with the provision that these costs could be considered support payments for Family Responsibility Office purposes.
Appeal dismissed; striking pleadings for repeated failure to provide financial disclosure was not excessive.
The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law application regarding child support for failing to comply with financial disclosure orders.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the remedy was not excessive given the appellant had breached six previous orders and received multiple warnings.
The court also upheld the motion judge's award of full recovery costs based on a finding of bad faith.
The court upheld the extradition order, finding the Minister reasonably considered Gladue principles.
The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to order his surrender to the United States of America pursuant to the Extradition Act.
The applicant, a Mohawk of Akwesasne with Aboriginal heritage, argued that the Minister failed to give proper consideration to Gladue principles and his Charter rights.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Minister's decision, finding that she had properly considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's Aboriginal background and Gladue principles, and that the applicant's circumstances were distinguishable from prior cases.
The court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the Minister's decision fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.