Kathleen Y. Jin

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff Yu Feng's action for delay or as an abuse of process, arguing that the 2018 action was duplicative of a 2013 action that had already been dismissed for delay.

The court found an inordinate and inexcusable 10-year delay, counting from the original 2013 action, and that the 2018 action was an abuse of process for circumventing rules for amending pleadings.

The plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, particularly regarding the defendants' lost counterclaim and unavailable witnesses.

The motion to dismiss Yu Feng's action for delay was granted.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a mortgage action.

The court considered the factors for setting aside default judgment under Rule 19.08(2), including the explanation for delay, promptness of the motion, and the merits of the defence.

While the corporate defendant was found liable for the principal mortgage amount, the court partially set aside the judgment against the corporation regarding interest rates and other charges, and fully set aside the judgment against the individual defendants concerning personal guarantees, imposing terms for compliance.

The respondent father sought costs of $25,743.20 on a full recovery basis after successfully defending a motion for relocation and an urgency application brought by the applicant mother.

The mother argued for no or nominal costs, citing her inability to pay and alleging unreasonable conduct by the father.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the father's reasonable offers to settle and the conduct of both parties.

The court found no unreasonable conduct by the father and determined the mother had some ability to pay.

The court awarded the father costs fixed at $18,000.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking interim sole custody and permission to relocate her two children, a 9-year-old from a previous relationship and a 12-month-old with the respondent father, from Stittsville to Deep River.

The father opposed the relocation of his biological child and sought interim joint custody and primary residence.

The court dismissed the mother's request to relocate the 12-month-old, finding she had not established compelling reasons to upset the status quo on an interim basis.

The court ordered interim joint custody, with the child to reside primarily with the father in the matrimonial home, and granted the mother weekend access.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim for interim child support for the 9-year-old step-child, finding no prima facie case that the father stood in the place of a parent.