Menreet Salama

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 4, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant husband brought a motion to vary interim spousal and child support.

The respondent wife raised a preliminary objection that the motion was stayed because the applicant was an undischarged bankrupt.

The court dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, claims for support are not stayed.

On the merits, the court found a material change in circumstances due to a significant decline in the applicant's income as a pharmacist.

The court imputed income to both parties and varied the interim child and spousal support retroactively.

The appellant, a refugee in Canada, sued his former Kuwaiti employers and others for damages arising from alleged torture and conspiracy in Kuwait.

The motion judge stayed the action for want of jurisdiction, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario and declining to apply the forum of necessity doctrine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no error in principle and his discretionary decision, based on a lack of cogent evidence supporting the appellant's claims of exceptional circumstances, was entitled to deference.

The plaintiff successfully defended two summary judgment motions brought by the defendants, The City of Mississauga and Peel Condominium Corporation #89.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued against the costs, citing a last-minute change in the plaintiff's discovery evidence and excessive hours billed by plaintiff's counsel.

The court found the plaintiff fully successful and entitled to costs, dismissing the defendants' arguments regarding the plaintiff's testimony.

While acknowledging the complexity, the court found the total hours billed by two counsel to be excessive.

The court fixed costs at $8,000 all-inclusive against each defendant, applying Rule 57.01(1) and principles of fairness and reasonableness in costs awards.

The defendants, the City of Mississauga and Peel Condominium Corporation #89 (PCC89), brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for injuries sustained in a trip and fall on a municipal boulevard.

The City argued the boulevard was in reasonable repair or that it lacked knowledge of the non-repair and took reasonable steps.

PCC89 argued it was not an occupier of the municipal property and had no liability.

The plaintiff contended both defendants owed a duty of care and that genuine issues for trial existed regarding the hole's size, the defendants' occupier status, and the reasonableness of their inspection policies.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including the actual size of the hole, the extent of PCC89's maintenance and control over the boulevard, and the reasonableness of the City's inspection policy.

The appellant insurer sought its legal expenses following a successful appeal that reduced the respondent's income replacement benefits and rescinded housekeeping benefits.

The respondent argued that each party should bear its own expenses or that the appellant's request was out of time.

The Director's Delegate found the appellant was entitled to 50% of its reasonable appeal legal expenses due to its success on the appeal, but reduced the proportion because the appellant had hindered the process by arguing the parties were out of time for an arbitration expense hearing despite having requested a stay.

The Delegate also reduced the claimed hourly rate for senior counsel and the disbursement for expedited transcripts, fixing the total costs payable by the respondent at $2,594.00.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the respondent income replacement benefits (IRBs) and housekeeping and home maintenance benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal in part.

The Delegate found the arbitrator erred in law by awarding IRBs for a period prior to September 3, 2010, as there was no evidence of a shortfall, and reduced the IRB award accordingly.

The Delegate also rescinded the housekeeping benefits award because the arbitrator decided entitlement for a period not in dispute.

The appeal regarding arbitration legal expenses was dismissed as the arbitrator had not yet made a formal order on expenses.