O. Chaudhry

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and undertakings, which was settled by the defendant shortly after the motion materials were served.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought over $26,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendant argued for $2,000 to $3,000.

The court found the plaintiff's costs entirely disproportionate, noting the plaintiff failed to serve a refusals chart until 11 months after the notice of motion and prepared full motion materials despite the defendant's cooperative stance.

The court fixed costs at $5,489.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the parties' 13-year-old son to move with her and his younger sisters to Ajax.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing the son should remain in Mississauga where he attends school and plays high-level soccer.

The court conducted a confidential interview with the child.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court determined that the son should remain in Mississauga on an interim basis to minimize disruption to his schooling and soccer routines, but ordered a robust access schedule to ensure he maintains contact with his mother and sisters.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

He argued the trial judge erred by imputing income based on his rental income without deducting the expenses incurred to earn that income, and by failing to apply the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's failure to address the rental expenses contained in the appellant's tax returns constituted a significant misapprehension of evidence and an error in principle.

The court ordered a new trial to determine the appellant's income, spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The plaintiffs, Nashaat and Taghreed Aly, claimed a partnership interest in a family grocery business, Nader Halal, operated by Adel Tohamy.

The court found a valid oral agreement from 2001 granting the Alys a 20% interest.

In a related family law application, Adel's former wife, Naiema, sought to set aside two separation agreements that released her claims to the family businesses and spousal support.

The court set aside both agreements under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to Adel's deliberate failure to disclose significant assets, unconscionability, and duress.

The court also found the defendants engaged in spoliation of evidence by destroying financial records and ordered the appointment of a receiver over the businesses pending the damages phase of the trial.