Kaufman

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to resume the equal parenting schedule set out in the parties' separation agreement, alleging the respondent mother was withholding the children and alienating them.

The children had refused to return to the applicant's home following the introduction of her new partner and an alleged physical incident.

The court declined to hear the motion on an urgent basis, finding no evidence of alienation by the respondent, who had encouraged the children and proposed mediation.

The court held that the applicant should have exhausted reasonable avenues for resolution, such as mediation or meeting with the children, before resorting to urgent litigation during the pandemic.

The plaintiff brought a motion to validate service on a corporate defendant and to dispense with service on two individual defendants in an action for misappropriation of funds.

The court found that service on the corporate defendant was already effective under the Rules of Civil Procedure by mailing the claim to its registered address, making validation unnecessary.

The court declined to dispense with service on the individual defendants, finding the plaintiff had not exhausted all reasonable efforts to locate them, such as making inquiries at the criminal court counter, bringing a disclosure motion, or using a skip tracer.

The court extended the time for service on the individual defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to exclude the co-defendants, a father and son, from attending each other's examination for discovery in a defamation action arising from a neighbour dispute.

The plaintiff argued there was a risk the co-defendants would tailor their evidence.

Applying the factors from Besner and Lazar, the court found a risk of tailoring given their common interests, the credibility issues inherent in defamation, and their familial relationship.

The motion was allowed in part: the father was ordered to be discovered first without the son present, while the father was permitted to attend the son's subsequent examination to allay the son's safety concerns.

La requérante s'oppose à la libération de faillite de son ex-conjoint.

Le failli a fait cession de ses biens à la suite d'une ordonnance le condamnant à payer 34 000 $ en dépens dans le cadre d'un litige familial.

La Cour a conclu que le failli avait agi de façon déraisonnable lors du litige familial et que sa faillite visait principalement à éviter de payer cette dette.

Compte tenu qu'il s'agit d'une deuxième faillite et que les actifs sont inférieurs à cinquante cents par dollar d'obligations, le tribunal a ordonné une libération conditionnelle au paiement de 16 000 $ au syndic.

The bankrupt, a 42-year-old second-time bankrupt, applied for a discharge.

The Canada Revenue Agency opposed the discharge on the grounds that it was a tax-driven bankruptcy, with the bankrupt owing over $660,000 in personal income taxes.

The court found that the bankrupt failed to cooperate with a CRA audit, transferred his business to his sister to avoid paying taxes, and artificially lowered his income to avoid surplus income payments.

The court ordered a conditional discharge requiring the payment of $150,000 and suspended the discharge for 18 months.

The self-represented applicant brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference seeking immediate payment of child and spousal support due to alleged dire financial circumstances, and an order removing the parties' daughters from the respondent's care due to safety concerns.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to establish urgency regarding the children's safety or the applicant's financial hardship.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicant returning with a further affidavit providing full financial disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion to compel his 87-year-old mother to complete her cross-examination in the usual manner or to strike her affidavit.

The mother had become emotionally overwhelmed during the initial cross-examination, and medical evidence indicated that continuing in the usual manner posed a risk of harm.

The court had previously ordered an accommodated procedure, which the mother agreed to but the applicant refused.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the accommodated procedure was a reasonable alternative and the medical evidence justified the adaptation.

The applicant's request for an adjournment was also denied due to his failure to act with reasonable diligence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee executed by the defendant for a $300,000 US loan to a corporation.

The defendant raised the defence of economic duress, arguing he was pressured into signing the guarantee to save the business.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial because the pressure was legitimate commercial pressure and the defendant had subsequently affirmed the guarantee.

The court also awarded pre and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, despite the guarantee only covering the principal amount.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to commence an action using only his initials, alleging historical sexual abuse by a former teacher.

The plaintiff filed evidence from his treating psychotherapist indicating that using his real name would cause unnecessary harm and exacerbate his symptoms.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court granted the motion, finding that the salutary effects of the order outweighed the deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The defendant subcontractor brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the third-party general contractor for defence costs.

The general contractor had breached its contractual obligation to obtain a wrap-up insurance policy for the construction project.

The court found that had the policy been obtained, there was a mere possibility that the claims against the subcontractor for property damage would have been covered, triggering a duty to defend.

The court ordered the general contractor to reimburse past defence costs and to retain an independent lawyer to act as an adjuster to approve future defence costs.

The defendant brought motions for leave to amend his counterclaim to add a claim for misappropriation of founder shares, for substituted service, and for document production.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding the defendant lacked standing to assert a claim on behalf of his nominee corporation and that the dispute was subject to an international arbitration agreement.

The request for substituted service was also dismissed due to a lack of evidence of impracticability.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to produce relevant corporate documents within his power.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to substitute a named defendant for a 'Jane Doe' following a motor vehicle accident.

The proposed defendant initially opposed the motion but ultimately consented.

The only issue remaining was costs.

The proposed defendant argued the plaintiffs should pay costs as they were granted an indulgence.

The court rejected this, finding the plaintiffs acted with diligence.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs fixed at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in the cause, noting it was reasonable for the proposed defendant to initially oppose the motion.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion to withdraw its child protection application, which had been initiated due to severe parental conflict.

The court found that while the parents continued to have a highly conflicted relationship, the children were functioning well and there were no ongoing child protection concerns that warranted the society's continued involvement.

The court granted the motion to withdraw the application and issued a final order prohibiting the parents from making disparaging comments about each other in the presence of the children.

Following the settlement of a motion to change child and spousal support, both parties sought full recovery of their costs.

The moving party sought to terminate spousal support, while the responding party initially refused to acknowledge the moving party's right to a review.

The court found divided success and criticized both parties for unreasonable behavior and lack of civility.

Finding that the responding party's initial aggressive position tipped the scale slightly in the moving party's favour, the court awarded the moving party fixed costs of $2,500.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his alleged failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding child and spousal support, financial disclosure, and business valuation.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting that such a remedy should only be used in exceptional circumstances, particularly in family law cases where ongoing obligations are determined.

Instead, the court ordered alternative remedies, including allowing the applicant to encumber the matrimonial home for litigation funding, requiring the respondent to provide a collateral mortgage to secure support arrears, and granting the applicant access to the respondent's business records.