Danny Meneses Bertao

The Applicant (Mother) brought a motion under the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEAA) to obtain information about the Respondent's (Father's) employer and income tax returns to establish a child support order.

The Father was in default of prior disclosure orders and failed to attend the hearing.

The court granted the Mother's application, finding that the requirements of FOAEAA sections 7, 8, and 10 were met, and that the order would not jeopardize anyone's safety.

The court authorized a court official to seek the information from the Minister of Justice, with confidentiality provisions to be determined upon receipt of the information.

The plaintiff, Sina Akhavan, sought an order to continue an action against the deceased defendant, Siavash Taheri, in the absence of an estate representative, and leave to bring a Norwich Order for enforcement of a prior judgment.

The court granted both requests, finding it desirable to allow the judgment creditor to pursue recovery given the lack of estate representation and the beneficiaries' unresponsiveness.

The appellants appealed an order requiring $550,000 to be paid into court under Rule 45.02, pending resolution of a dispute arising from a house building project.

The respondent claimed monies owed from a promissory note, share of profits, and unpaid wages.

After the appellants sold the house without notice, a caution was registered, then removed in exchange for an irrevocable direction to hold $550,000 in trust.

The appellants sought to set aside this direction, arguing the caution was invalid and the direction was procured by economic duress.

The application judge dismissed the appellants' application and allowed the respondent's cross-application.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the agreement was negotiated by counsel, which belied claims of duress or invalidity of the caution.

The court affirmed the application judge's finding that the criteria for a Rule 45.02 order were met, as the respondent claimed a specific fund, raised a serious issue to be tried, and the balance of convenience favored the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This decision addresses multiple motions in a family law dispute concerning child support, post-secondary education expenses, and contempt.

The court dismissed the applicant's contempt motion regarding costs due to lack of jurisdiction and reserved the contempt motion for non-compliance with a temporary order for trial.

The applicant's motion to dismiss the respondent's motion was denied as it would prejudice the children's rights to support.

The respondent's motion to set aside a prior order terminating child support for the adult daughter was granted, but the court provisionally ordered that the applicant is not obligated to pay support for the daughter beyond her 18th birthday, subject to re-determination at trial.

Interim retroactive child support for both children and ongoing child support for the son were ordered, but the retroactive amount was equitably set off against substantial costs owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The respondent's request for an increased contribution to university expenses was denied due to lack of material change and incomplete disclosure, with this issue also reserved for trial.

Both parties were ordered to provide comprehensive financial disclosure.

A custody and access trial involving a seven-year-old child born to unmarried parents.

The father sought bi-weekly supervised access after nearly three years of no contact with the child.

The mother sought sole custody with no access.

The court found a history of domestic violence in the parties' relationship, with the father having a lengthy criminal record including assault convictions.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended no access.

The court concluded that the child had developed significant fear and anxiety regarding the father, and that reintroducing him would cause emotional harm.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and ordered no access to the father, finding this was in the child's best interests despite the general principle that access is important.

This is a mid-trial evidentiary ruling in a family law matter concerning access to a child.

The respondent sought to introduce a decision from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dated August 8, 2008, which had awarded compensation to the respondent for abuse allegedly perpetrated by the applicant.

The applicant opposed admission on hearsay grounds and argued that any probative value was outweighed by prejudicial impact.

The court ruled the Board's decision inadmissible on multiple grounds: it did not qualify as a public document, its content could not be used to buttress credibility under prior consistent statement principles, it was not necessary under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, and its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value given that it was based on an ex parte hearing where the applicant had no opportunity to challenge the evidence.

A mid-trial evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of three video recordings taken by the father of a seven-year-old child.

The father sought to introduce the videos to demonstrate that the child was comfortable and relaxed in his presence, thereby rebutting the mother's assertion that the child feared him due to an alleged sexual assault.

The mother opposed admission, arguing the videos were taken surreptitiously.

The court found the videos were not taken surreptitiously, possessed probative value regarding the child's alleged fear, and were admissible into evidence.

The applicant sought costs arising from the dismissal of the respondent's motions for contempt and for permission for her step-father to act as agent at trial, as well as costs thrown away from two adjournments of the custody/access trial.

The applicant claimed full recovery costs of $3,217.49.

The respondent sought no costs order or alternatively, costs on a less than full recovery basis.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the motions and entitled to costs.

While the respondent acted reasonably, she was not exempt from a costs award.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, with payment and enforcement suspended pending the trial judge's further direction.

The respondent mother sought permission under clause 4(1)(c) of the Family Law Rules to have her step-father, a suspended lawyer, represent her at trial in a custody and access dispute.

The applicant father opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the representation motion on three grounds: (1) permitting a suspended lawyer to act would undermine the Law Society and compromise the integrity of the justice system; (2) the proposed representative failed to disclose his discipline history, demonstrating lack of honesty and integrity; and (3) the personal relationship between the representative and the mother created a conflict of interest that compromised his objectivity.

The court granted an adjournment to allow the mother to seek alternative legal representation.