Maia Rabinovitch

The plaintiff, CLC Tree Services Ltd., brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery, alleging that the City of London granted preferential treatment in awarding arboricultural and vegetation management contracts to Davey Tree Expert Co. of Canada, Limited to the exclusion of CLC.

The defendant, the City of London, brought a cross-motion seeking answers to undertakings and refusals from CLC's examination, arguing that CLC's allegations were based on rumours and unnamed sources and that the scope of the claim needed to be defined.

The court addressed numerous undertakings and refusals, emphasizing the importance of parties working collaboratively to resolve discovery disputes and the broad scope of oral discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted many of CLC's requests for disclosure while also ordering CLC to provide greater particularity regarding its damages claims and the factual basis for its allegations.

This decision concerns an appeal from a family arbitration award regarding the proper method for valuing a foreign property (in Egypt) for equalization purposes under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The applicant (wife) argued for alternative exchange rate methodologies to avoid a "phantom loss" due to currency devaluation, while the respondent (husband) and the arbitrator applied the statutory approach of using the exchange rates at the date of marriage and the valuation date.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator’s approach correct and consistent with the legislative scheme, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer, appealed the dismissal of his application for a certificate of appointment as estate trustee with a will.

The application judge had refused the appointment due to concerns about the appellant's potential unlicensed practice of law, given his professional history and involvement in the will's preparation and subsequent rapid steps to secure his appointment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, confirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to refuse an estate trustee appointment, even if unopposed, to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court also dismissed a motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced earlier.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from the City of Toronto to the City of London.

The plaintiff's action alleged a conspiracy in awarding contracts for forestry operations in the City of London, seeking $31 million in damages.

The court applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that all enumerated factors favoured the transfer, as the events, damages, subject-matter, and witnesses were all located in London.

The motion was granted and the action was ordered transferred.

The applicant father brought an emergency motion to reinstate his regular access schedule to his daughter.

The respondent mother had withheld access after the father was arrested for a domestic incident involving his current partner, although the charges were subsequently dropped.

The mother proposed suspending overnight access pending input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found no viable reason to permit unsupervised daytime access while denying overnight access, and ordered the father's parenting time reinstated forthwith.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking interim sole custody, a change of school, and a s. 30 assessment for the parties' four-year-old child.

The applicant mother opposed the relief and sought a restraining order against the father.

The court ordered temporary joint decision-making and expanded the father's parenting time to six nights out of fourteen, finding both parents capable despite their high conflict and mutual allegations.

The court dismissed the father's requests to change the child's school and for a s. 30 assessment, noting the assessment would cause unnecessary delay and was not required.

The mother's request for a restraining order was also dismissed for lack of objective evidence supporting a reasonable fear for her safety.

No costs were awarded.

Following a motion where the court assumed jurisdiction over custody and access matters but refused to stay the access provisions of a German court order, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $13,000 based on an offer to settle, while the father sought substantial indemnity costs of $16,699.

The court found the mother was primarily successful on the central issue of jurisdiction, but her non-severable offer to settle was not as favourable as the final order because she did not obtain the requested adjournment of the father's enforcement motion.

Considering divided success, the father's failure to make an offer, and the mother's need to amend her pleadings, the court awarded the mother partial recovery costs of $4,000.

The applicant mother sought an order granting the Ontario Court of Justice jurisdiction to decide matters of custody, access, and child support regarding their four-year-old son, and requested a stay of the access provisions of a German court order.

The respondent father sought a declaration that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction and that the German court was the appropriate forum.

The court determined that Ontario had jurisdiction because the child was habitually resident in Ontario pursuant to a consent order from the German court.

The court recognized the German order as valid and enforceable in Ontario but granted the mother leave to amend her application to seek supersession of the order based on material change in circumstances.

The applicant wife sought temporary spousal support from the respondent husband after a 32-year traditional marriage.

The husband attempted to defeat the wife's claims by commencing divorce proceedings in Serbia, which the wife successfully challenged.

The primary issue was the husband's income, which fluctuated significantly in his financial statements and tax disclosures.

The court imputed income to the husband based on his historical earning pattern and insufficient disclosure, rejecting his lower income claims.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $1,825 per month, retroactive, and awarded costs to the wife due to the husband's low offer and lack of disclosure.

The respondent father moved for an interim order to expand access to his two-year-old son and to change the access exchange location.

The applicant mother opposed the expanded access and sought an order for the respondent to contribute to their 17-year-old son's hockey registration fees.

The court dismissed the father's request for expanded access, finding no material change in circumstances to warrant varying the existing consent order.

However, the court granted the father's request to change the exchange location to the parties' respective residences.

The court also ordered the father to contribute $1,000 to the hockey registration fees.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings on certain issues for non-compliance with various disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, noting ample evidence that the appellant remained in default and that the default was wilful.

The motion judge had mitigated the drastic remedy by allowing the appellant to move to reinstate his pleadings on proper evidence, which he failed to pursue in a timely fashion.

The appeal was dismissed.