Konstantine-Peter Ketsetzis

The court issued a costs endorsement following a four-day trial.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs of $66,220.84, citing her success and the Respondent's unreasonable and bad faith conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and asset depletion.

The Respondent, self-represented, requested more time for submissions, which was denied due to non-compliance with previous orders.

The court found the Respondent acted in bad faith, intending to inflict emotional harm and conceal financial status, and that his conduct was unreasonable.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the Applicant $50,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, and ordered these costs to be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, as child support was the principal issue in the underlying trial.

The Applicant, Patricia Beaudoin, brought a motion to change a separation agreement, seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and special expenses from the Respondent, Paul John Stevens.

The Respondent, self-represented, sought to uphold the existing agreements.

The court found the Respondent intentionally underemployed, unreasonably deducted expenses, and failed to provide financial disclosure, leading to an imputation of income of $150,000 annually from 2018 onwards.

The court ordered retroactive child support from January 2015 and ongoing support, as well as a portion of special expenses.

A lien was ordered against the Respondent's property to secure the retroactive child support due to his blameworthy conduct and stated intention to avoid obligations.

The Applicant's request to set aside the 2014 Amending Agreement on the basis of duress was denied.

The applicants sought the removal of the two respondents as executors of their deceased father's will and directions for estate administration due to a prolonged inability to cooperate and administer the estate.

The court found clear evidence that the siblings were unable to work together, leading to a frozen state of inaction detrimental to all beneficiaries.

The respondents, particularly George Voloudakis, failed to comply with an interim order regarding the estate property.

The court granted the application, removing both respondents as executors and issuing comprehensive directions for the estate's administration, including the sale of the primary asset (the family home) and the handling of financial documents and tenant rents.

Costs were awarded against the respondents, payable from their shares of the estate.

The plaintiff franchisor sought an interlocutory injunction against a former franchisee, Gregory Boundris, and related entities (D.B.V. Co. Ltd., Sub Works Inc., and Haralabbi Boundris), alleging breach of a restrictive covenant in a franchise agreement.

The former franchisee had opened a competing sandwich shop, "Sub Works," at the same location shortly after his Mr. Sub franchise agreement terminated.

The court applied the "strong prima facie case" standard for the injunction, finding it would effectively be a final determination.

The court granted the injunction against Gregory Boundris due to his admitted involvement in the competing business, but dismissed the motion against the other defendants, finding insufficient evidence to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm against them.

The respondent mother sought an order for security for costs in the amount of $25,000 and financial disclosure from the applicant father in a family law proceeding involving custody, access, and child support of a young child.

The applicant had filed numerous motions, engaged in vexatious conduct, failed to pay previous cost awards and child support, and made threats against court officers and the Children's Lawyer's social worker.

The court found that security for costs was appropriate despite the custody context, as the applicant's claim for joint custody lacked merit given the parties' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court ordered security for costs of $25,000 if the applicant proceeded with the joint custody claim, or $10,000 if he abandoned that claim and pursued only expanded access.