Kershman

The applicants sought judicial review to set aside an arbitration award that ordered the applicant son to pay his respondent father over $11 million to dissolve their gas bar partnership.

The applicants alleged procedural unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias by the arbitrator, raising issues regarding the non-attendance of a party, the removal of a party from the style of cause, the rules of procedure used, the treatment of expert testimony, and the refusal to admit post-arbitration financial evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed all grounds of the application, finding no procedural irregularities or bias on the part of the arbitrator, and noting that the applicants themselves were responsible for their expert witness not testifying.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff bankruptcy trustee's claims for the return of usurious interest and unlawful commissions paid as part of a Ponzi scheme.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred and that breach of statute is not a valid civil cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the trustee completed its investigation into the complex fraud.

The court also granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the pleadings to explicitly frame the claims in unjust enrichment.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary child support for two children.

The court determined the living arrangements and educational status of the older child to calculate the applicant father's child support obligations for specific periods.

The court also imputed income to both parties for certain years to calculate the mother's ongoing and retroactive child support obligations for the younger child.

The mother's claim for undue hardship was dismissed as she failed to meet the requirements under section 10(2) of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court ordered the mother to pay the net arrears and ongoing support.