Mandhane

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte temporary Mareva injunction against the defendants following the failure of their trucking joint venture.

The plaintiffs sought to continue the injunction and register a certificate of pending litigation, while the defendants moved to set it aside.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, specifically omitting their own participation in transferring and dissipating corporate assets after insolvency.

As a result, the court set aside the temporary Mareva injunction nunc pro tunc and dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for interim equitable relief, finding they did not come to court with clean hands.

The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including an insurer and its subcontractors, for various torts arising from the handling of a statutory accident benefits claim.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike the claims for lack of jurisdiction and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court refused to strike the action for lack of jurisdiction because of an outstanding constitutional challenge to the Insurance Act.

However, the court struck all tort claims against the moving defendants, except for the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding it was plain and obvious they could not succeed.

The court also struck the plaintiff's constitutional challenges to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule as an abuse of process.

The applicant father sought a reversal of primary parenting time as a penalty after the respondent mother was found in contempt for breaching a final parenting order by denying overnight parenting time.

The court found that the mother had not purged her contempt, as she failed to offer make-up time and continued to obstruct the father's parenting role.

However, the court declined to order a reversal of primary parenting time, finding it would not be in the child's best interests given her strong attachment to the mother and the potential for emotional harm.

Instead, the court ordered five weekends of make-up parenting time, expanded summer parenting time for the father, and directed the parties to use a parenting coordinator and communication app to minimize conflict.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagor following a default on a second mortgage.

The defendant admitted liability for the principal and interest but disputed liability for mortgage discharge fees.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the default.

However, the court declined to award the claimed discharge fees, as the plaintiff had not yet incurred them and there was no evidence they were a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the principal and missed interest payments, plus partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff private lender moved for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage renewal agreement after the defendant defaulted.

The defendant, a self-represented homeowner, argued the renewal was unconscionable.

The court found the renewal agreement unconscionable due to the plaintiff's exploitation of the defendant's financial desperation, failure to provide mandatory regulatory disclosures, and inclusion of illegal terms under the Interest Act.

The renewal was declared null and void, and damages were awarded based only on the original mortgage terms, excluding the plaintiff's claimed discharge fees.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 21.01(3)(b) and (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was duplicative of an existing proceeding (CV-22-544) regarding the same private mortgage agreement.

The court found that the factual issues in this action went to the heart of interpreting the private mortgage contract, creating a clear risk of abuse of process through inconsistent findings.

The court dismissed the action as entirely duplicative and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, noting the plaintiff could seek to be added as a third party in the parallel proceeding.

The defendants brought motions for leave to file a jury notice and to compel answers to undertakings, while the plaintiff brought a motion for answers to refusals.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident and was initially commenced under the ordinary procedure, moved to the simplified procedure, and then moved back to the ordinary procedure due to the anticipated length of the trial.

The court granted the defendants leave to file a jury notice, finding the change in procedure constituted a substantial change in circumstances.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to answer an outstanding undertaking regarding her EI file but dismissed the plaintiff's motion regarding refusals.

Costs of $9,000 on a substantial indemnity basis were awarded to the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) regarding four commercial units they had agreed to purchase from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had previously failed in an application to terminate the agreements of purchase and sale, and the matter was converted to an action.

The court applied the two-step test for a CPL, finding the defendants had a reasonable claim to an interest in the land and that the equities favoured granting the CPL, as the property was unique and intended for a medical practice.

The motion was granted with costs awarded to the defendants.

The parties separated after a six-year marriage characterized by the applicant father's coercive control and family violence.

The father sought equal parenting time and sole decision-making for education and healthcare, while the respondent mother sought primary parenting time, joint decision-making, and spousal support.

The court found that the father's history of violence significantly impacted the mother and child, causing severe anxiety.

The court awarded the mother sole decision-making authority and primary parenting time, with the father receiving alternating weekends and conditional summer time.

The father was also ordered to pay full Table child support and spousal support at the high end of the range due to the economic consequences of his abusive conduct.

The applicant brought a motion for exclusive possession of the jointly-owned matrimonial home and an interim restraining order against the respondent.

The respondent had recently returned to the home from the UK and engaged in intimidating and verbally abusive behaviour towards the applicant and their adult children.

The court found that the applicant and children had reasonable grounds to fear for their psychological and physical safety.

The motion for a restraining order and exclusive possession was granted.

Following a trial on the equalization of net family property, the parties were unable to agree on the final equalization payment and costs.

The court determined that the applicant owed the respondent an equalization payment of $639,398, rejecting her argument regarding a bank account balance based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party but noted both parties behaved unreasonably during the litigation.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $45,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs, who are creditors of the deceased, brought a motion to appoint an independent litigation administrator for the estate, alleging a conflict of interest among the beneficiaries.

The defendant beneficiaries opposed the motion and brought a countermotion to appoint one of the next of kin as estate trustee.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding that creditors do not have the right to dictate who represents the estate in litigation they initiated, and granted the countermotion to appoint the next of kin as estate trustee.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce the terms of a separation agreement requiring the respondent father to pay 50% of the children's section 7 expenses.

The father argued that certain expenses were not covered by the agreement and sought to vary his contribution to be proportional to his income, claiming a material change in circumstances due to his impecuniosity.

The court ordered the father to pay his share of most claimed expenses, excluding paramedical, car, and cellular phone costs.

The court dismissed the father's request to vary the agreement, finding no material change in circumstances as he had significant assets and had voluntarily retired.

The court ordered the ongoing expenses to be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's financial pleadings for failing to comply with an interim order requiring him to pay child support, spousal support, and costs, and to provide financial disclosure.

The father admitted the breach but argued he had provided significant disclosure and was impecunious.

The court rejected the impecuniosity defence, noting the father owned a Ferrari and had an admitted income of $337,000.

However, given the complexity of the financial issues and the principle that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court granted the father one final opportunity to comply with the interim order before his pleadings would be struck.

The parties separated after a five-year marriage.

The mother sought retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the father engaged in monumental and self-serving financial nondisclosure regarding his businesses in Canada and Nigeria.

Drawing a strong adverse inference, the court imputed the father's income at $130,000 for most years due to intentional underemployment and hidden income.

The father was ordered to pay child support and indefinite spousal support at the high end of the SSAG range, along with a substantial equalization payment.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim order to remove the requirement that he facilitate daily Facetime calls between the respondent mother and the child during his extended holiday parenting time.

The mother opposed the motion and sought additional relief, including make-up parenting time.

The court found that while the mother's previous contempt constituted a material change in circumstances, the father failed to demonstrate that eliminating the calls was in the child's best interests.

Both the father's motion and the mother's requests for additional relief were dismissed.

The mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to stay the father's motion to change until he satisfied over $84,000 in outstanding costs and equalization orders.

The court applied the three-stage test for Rule 1(8) and found that the father's failure to pay the orders was a triggering event, and there were no exceptional circumstances to exercise discretion in his favour.

The court held that allowing the father to proceed while in breach of the orders would condone an ongoing abuse of process.

The father's motion to change was stayed pending full payment of the outstanding orders.

In a high-conflict family law dispute ongoing since 2017, the respondent father brought a motion for contempt regarding an interim parenting order, and the applicant mother brought a cross-motion to review the order and for interim child support.

The court refused to grant leave for either party to bring further interim motions, noting the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to deal with cases justly and efficiently.

The court adjourned the motions sine die and directed the parties to proceed to trial on the parenting and child support issues.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt for repeatedly breaching a final order regarding his overnight parenting time.

The court found that the mother intentionally breached clear and unequivocal terms of the order on multiple occasions, often requiring the father to resort to police enforcement.

Given the mother's pattern of disregarding court orders and resorting to self-help measures, the court declined to exercise its discretion against a contempt finding, concluding it was in the child's best interests.

The mother was found in contempt, and the matter was adjourned for a penalty hearing.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's financial pleadings for his failure to comply with previous disclosure and costs orders.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting the father had made a good faith effort to provide most of the outstanding disclosure and that less drastic remedies were available for the unpaid costs.

However, the court ordered that the sale of the matrimonial home proceed without the father's consent due to his failure to cooperate with a previous order.

The father was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs for the appearance.