Leena Leva Kumar

This case involves two motions to change a prior consent order regarding parenting and child support for a 13-year-old child.

The primary issues were the mother's proposed relocation from Mississauga to Burlington, the parenting schedule, decision-making responsibility, extracurricular activities, child support, and retroactive adjustments.

The court granted the mother's request to relocate, finding it in the child's best interests, and adjusted the parenting schedule to give the father three weekends per month and shared summer time.

The court declined to change decision-making responsibility, maintaining the mother's final say after consultation.

On financial matters, the court declined to impute income to the father but imputed a lower income to the mother based on OSAP receipt.

Child support was adjusted retroactively, and an overpayment by the father was credited.

Section 7 expenses were ordered to be shared proportionately to income.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of legal costs following a comprehensive order by Price J. on October 29, 2018, and subsequent motions heard by Fragomeni J. on April 1 and 8, 2019.

For the October 2018 attendance, where a substantial portion of the order was by agreement, the court determined that each party should bear their own costs.

For the April 2019 motions, which involved a motion to vary a consent order, child support, spousal support, division of matrimonial home proceeds, and health benefits, the court found the results to be mixed.

Despite offers to settle, neither party achieved a significantly more favourable outcome.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for both sets of proceedings.

The applicant mother sought to vary an interim consent order for week-about residency of the children, requesting sole custody and supervised access for the respondent father, citing concerns about his opiate use and inability to co-parent.

She also sought spousal support and child support determinations, medical benefits, and distribution of matrimonial home proceeds.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to vary the parenting schedule, finding no material change in circumstances or compelling evidence to disturb the status quo.

The court imputed the father's income at $50,000 and the mother's at $96,913, ordering the mother to pay the father $679 per month in set-off child support and $300 per month in spousal support.

Other financial issues, including retroactive support and expense reimbursements, were reserved for trial.

The plaintiffs brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking declarations that a trust agreement was valid and binding, and that they each owned a 20% interest in a property.

In the alternative, they sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the credibility of witnesses and allegations of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the trust agreement.

The court emphasized that such serious credibility issues could not be resolved on a paper record or through fact-finding tools on a motion.

The alternative request for a certificate of pending litigation was also dismissed, as the property was acquired as an investment, damages were an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over the custody of the child and requesting the recognition and enforcement of a Qatari custody order.

The Applicant Mother opposed the motion.

The court determined that while the child's habitual residence was Qatar due to the Mother's abduction, Ontario nevertheless had jurisdiction under section 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act, as all six statutory criteria were met, including the child's substantial connection to Ontario and the balance of convenience.

The court declined to recognize and enforce the Qatari order, citing the Father's apparent forum shopping, conflicting foreign orders, and his failure to prove that Qatari law considered the child's best interests.

The Father's motion was dismissed.

In a dispute over the date of separation in a divorce proceeding, the applicant sought production of an intake form the respondent had completed at a lawyer's office.

The respondent had not retained or met with the lawyer, but completed the form seeking legal advice.

The court held that the intake form was protected by solicitor-client privilege, as it was completed for the purpose of seeking legal advice.

The court further found that the applicant failed to meet the onus to override the privilege, as the date of separation could be established through other evidence.

The request for production was denied.

A minority shareholder application was brought under the Business Corporations Act seeking an order for the majority to purchase the minority interest.

The court found that the applicant was a legitimate shareholder and that a breakdown in the relationship of trust and confidence among the small shareholder group, coupled with some oppression, warranted a remedy.

The court ordered a process for the termination of the business relationship, giving the respondents the option to either pursue a sale of the company's assets or a court-ordered share valuation process to purchase the applicant's shares.

The valuation date was set, and the issue of a holdback for a separate lawsuit was deferred.