Ken Snider

This case involved a family law trial addressing child support, property claims (unjust enrichment and resulting trust), and parenting issues following a 14-year marriage breakdown.

The applicant, Golnaz Amirmoezi, sought retroactive and prospective child support from the respondent, Saman Motieenia, and the added respondent, Elaheh Amirmoezi (Golnaz's mother), sought repayment of funds invested in real estate projects managed by Saman.

The court found Saman engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to provide financial disclosure and comply with court orders.

It imputed an income of $70,000 per year to Saman for prospective child support and ordered him to pay significant retroactive and arrears.

The court also found that Saman owed Elaheh $830,700 based on express trust, resulting trust, and breach of fiduciary duty, ordering immediate release of funds held in trust.

Parenting orders were made, allowing Golnaz to travel with the children without Saman's consent and establishing virtual parenting time for Saman.

The Superior Court of Justice resolved a family law dispute concerning parenting time, decision-making, and child support for a four-year-old child.

The court granted the applicant father sole decision-making authority and primary care, citing concerns about the respondent mother's approach to the child's medical care, school attendance, potential exposure to adult sexual activity, and her mental health.

The judgment also determined child support arrears owed by the father and established future child support obligations for the mother, with an offset for the arrears.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and extortion after allegedly forcing his ex-girlfriend to have sex with him by threatening to show revealing photos of her to her parents.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's testimony.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be vague, lacking in detail, and inconsistent, particularly regarding her interactions with the accused and her memory of key events.

Consequently, the court held that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.