Kiran Sah

The parties lived together for 14 years.

The applicant sought spousal support and a constructive trust in the respondent's business and residence.

The respondent moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the business claim based on a release the applicant signed when her employment with the business was terminated.

The applicant moved for an advance of $50,000 for litigation expenses under Rule 24(12).

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding the release pertained to employment and credibility issues required a trial.

The court granted the applicant's motion for interim disbursements, ordering a $50,000 advance from funds held in trust to level the playing field and allow her to retain an accountant.

The appellant appealed a family law trial judgment regarding the funding of an equalization payment and the trial costs award.

The trial judge had ordered the respondent to pay the $183,911.76 equalization payment out of the $277,980.48 proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home held in trust.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that, because the parties had an equal entitlement to the sale proceeds, the trial judge erred by effectively using the appellant's own share of the funds to partially satisfy the equalization payment owed to him.

This portion of the order was set aside.

However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the trial costs award, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the parties' relative success.

The appellant was awarded $7,500 in costs for the appeal.

The applicant mother moved for temporary sole custody of the parties' four children with alternate weekend access for the respondent father.

The father sought week-about shared custody.

The court found that the mother had unilaterally changed the children's routines to minimize contact with the father, and that alternate weekend access was not the true status quo.

The court ordered temporary joint custody with week-about residence to ensure the father's role was not marginalized.

Child support was varied to a set-off amount payable by the mother.

The appellants challenged a jury verdict arising from a construction site injury at a partly-built house, arguing errors in the causation charge, occupiers' liability analysis, trial management, jury instructions, and refusal to permit further objections.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's causation charge properly reflected the but-for framework and the apportionment scheme under the Negligence Act, and in any event no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The court also held that the jury's finding that the site was secure did not preclude liability because the workers had been told defects needed to be fixed and could only do so by entering the site.

Complaints about judicial interventions, the summary of evidence, and the proposed fresh evidence were rejected.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After failing to attend two pre-hearing discussions and the scheduled arbitration hearing, the insurer requested that the application be dismissed.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had declined to participate in the dispute resolution process and dismissed the application.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in expenses to the insurer for its attendance at the proceedings.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer claimed the applicant was precluded from receiving benefits under section 59 of the Schedule because he was entitled to receive WSIB benefits.

On a preliminary issue, the arbitrator held that the Financial Services Commission of Ontario lacks jurisdiction to determine whether an individual is entitled to WSIB benefits, as the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board has exclusive jurisdiction over that question.

Since there was no evidence the Board had made such a determination, section 59(1) did not apply, and the applicant was not precluded from receiving accident benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits.

The applicant's counsel successfully moved to be removed from the record.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing, and the arbitrator proceeded in his absence.

Due to discrepancies in the applicant's evidence regarding his pre-accident occupation and his failure to provide basic information or attend the hearing, the arbitrator found that the applicant failed to discharge his burden of proof.

The claims for income replacement benefits, a special award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $1,000.