Loftus J. Cuddy

A costs decision following a motion regarding parental travel with a child.

The respondent mother sought permission to travel to England with the subject child during the holiday period.

The applicant father brought a counter-motion opposing the travel, citing concerns about the child's return.

The court granted the travel with restrictive conditions, including a cash security deposit.

The applicant sought costs of $2,000 on a partial recovery basis, citing the respondent's failure to disclose material facts including her marriage to a British citizen and her work visa.

The court awarded costs as requested, finding the respondent's selective disclosure of information unreasonable and contrary to the principle of coming to court with clean hands.

The applicant, Weizhen Tang, brought an application to permit him to trade in foreign currencies under supervision on behalf of himself and consenting investors, despite an existing temporary cease trade order.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought to extend the temporary cease trade order pending related criminal proceedings.

The Commission found that the applicant had admitted to serious allegations, including failing to disclose losses, creating misleading account statements, and dissipating all invested funds in what Staff alleged was a Ponzi scheme.

The Commission dismissed the application to permit trading, finding it would pose an unacceptable risk of further harm to investors and capital markets, and extended the temporary cease trade order.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary child support and rescind over $20,000 in arrears.

He argued that his income had severely diminished due to depression and that the motions judge erred in imputing an annual income of $40,000 based on his past work in family businesses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet his onus of establishing a material change in circumstances.

The majority held that the motions judge was entitled to conclude that his income was difficult to discern and that a trial of an issue was not required.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's order dismissing her application for arbitration as premature and ordering her to pay a $3,000 assessment for abuse of process.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues in dispute had not been mediated as required by section 281(2) of the Insurance Act.

The appellant and her counsel had been given multiple opportunities to remedy the situation but failed to do so.

The arbitrator's finding of abuse of process and the resulting assessment were amply supported by the record.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer moved to dismiss the arbitration on the basis that the applicant had already commenced a court proceeding and had failed to mediate the issues in dispute.

The arbitrator found that the application was premature because the applicant had not sought mediation, which is a mandatory prerequisite under the Insurance Act.

The arbitration was dismissed as an abuse of process due to the applicant's counsel's repeated failure to comply with undertakings to withdraw the court action and mediate the claims.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's $3,000 assessment fee and $609.37 in legal expenses.