Lalit Kalra

This decision addresses the issue of costs following an eight-day trial in a family law matter consolidated with a civil action.

The Applicant (Hardeep Singh Nijher) sought a simple divorce, while the Respondent (Manpreet Dhaliwal) sought spousal support, equalization, and damages.

The trial decision granted the Respondent a small equalization payment but dismissed all other claims.

The Applicant and Defendants (Applicant's family and a friend) sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the Respondent engaged in bad faith conduct by making false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault, and by initiating a multiplicity of proceedings.

While full indemnity costs were deemed appropriate due to bad faith, the court reduced the total quantum awarded to account for the duplication of counsel for the Applicant and Defendants, and the prior resolution of a separate jewelry claim.

The Applicant sought a simple divorce, while the Respondent brought claims for equalization, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress against the Applicant and his family.

The court dismissed all of the Respondent's claims except for an equalization payment of $6,534.50, finding her evidence largely incredible and unreliable.

The court also dismissed the Applicant's request for an unequal division of family property.

The applicant husband brought a motion under Family Law Rule 12(6) to sever his claim for divorce from the corollary relief sought by the respondent wife.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing she would be disadvantaged regarding her claims for the return of jewellery and an interest in property.

The court found that the respondent's true motive was to delay the divorce as leverage for her civil claims, which would not be legally disadvantaged by the severance.

The motion to sever the divorce was granted, and the respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for a vesting order to transfer the matrimonial home to her name and permit its sale to secure outstanding child support, s.7 expenses, and cost awards from the respondent.

The respondent failed to file responding materials and his representatives engaged in inappropriate and disrespectful conduct during the virtual hearing.

The court granted the vesting order, finding it necessary to enforce the respondent's obligations given his persistent non-compliance with court orders, abandonment of the property, and imminent power of sale proceedings by the mortgagee.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion for financial and injunctive relief against the respondent husband and proposed third-party business associates, alleging asset depletion to prejudice family law equalization rights.

The court found the matter urgent due to the husband's alleged failure of financial disclosure and the third parties' lack of cooperation.

The motion was granted in part, allowing the wife to join the third parties, obtain interim non-depletion and Mareva injunctions, and ordering specific disclosure with daily penalties for non-compliance.

The court also imposed strict limits on the volume of material to be filed for the substantive motion hearing.

The applicant mother brought a motion for child support, daycare expenses, and costs for the child's permanent residence application.

The core issue was whether to impute income to the respondent father, who claimed a significant drop in income following a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the respondent to be highly evasive, lacking credibility, and actively concealing his true income, noting large unexplained bank deposits and a surreptitious recording of a questioning session.

The court imputed an income of $54,304 to the respondent based on his pre-separation earnings and ordered him to pay retroactive child support and a proportionate share of daycare and immigration expenses.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of two consolidated motions to disqualify counsel, Mr. Suvendu Goswami, for alleged conflicts of interest.

The court had initially recommended substantial indemnity costs but invited an apology from the applicants' lawyers and a request for partial indemnity.

Despite one lawyer's "paltry apology" and the other's refusal, the court ultimately awarded partial indemnity costs, acknowledging Mr. Goswami's acceptance of the apology.

The court also clarified that the two groups of applicants were complicit in the conduct justifying a punitive costs award, but the final award was based on normal principles due to the apology's acceptance.

The applicant sought to invalidate a Russian divorce, increase temporary spousal support, and increase temporary child support.

The respondent sought summary judgment upholding the Russian divorce, terminating spousal support, and reducing child support.

The court found the Russian divorce invalid due to the respondent's failure to provide proper notice and documentation to the applicant.

Both parties' requests to vary a prior temporary support order were dismissed, as no urgent circumstances were demonstrated to justify departing from the practice of not amending temporary orders pending trial.

The applicants in two related applications concerning the governance of a religious organization brought motions to disqualify the respondents' lawyer of record.

The applicants alleged that the lawyer was unfit to practice law, was a potential material witness, and had personal and client conflicts of interest.

The court dismissed the motions, finding no merit to any of the grounds for disqualification.

The court held that the lawyer's fitness to practice was not in issue, he was not a material witness, and he had no disqualifying conflicts of interest.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondents, noting that the applicants' lawyers had overreacted and made unfounded allegations.

The respondent brought a motion for custody of the parties' child, and the applicant opposed and brought a cross-motion for custody.

The court awarded temporary custody to the respondent mother, finding her to be the primary caregiver with superior parenting capacity.

The applicant's attempts to limit the respondent's access, unilateral decision-making regarding the child's care, and credibility concerns regarding his truthfulness and respect for the respondent as a co-parent were determinative factors.

The court granted the applicant alternate weekend access and mid-week overnight access, but rejected a 50-50 arrangement due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively and lack of clarity regarding the applicant's caregiving routine.