Mario D. Faieta

The applicant wife brought a motion for payment of occupation rent and carrying costs for the jointly held matrimonial home, arguing the respondent husband had agreed to pay them.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to strike portions of an affidavit containing without-prejudice communications and sought dismissal of the applicant's motion.

The court admitted portions of the without-prejudice letter to prove the scope of settlement, but redacted other portions.

The court declined to order temporary occupation rent, referring the issue to trial.

The request for carrying costs was also dismissed, as the applicant provided no updated financial statement to demonstrate need.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order that the parties' nine-year-old child attend a different Hebrew afterschool program, Makom Afterschool, instead of the Aleph Champ Hebrew School the child previously attended.

The child had expressed strong dissatisfaction with the previous program due to a lack of progress in learning Hebrew.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to switch to the new program, which offered a more rigorous language curriculum and was conveniently located attached to her new school.

The motion was granted and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant wife brought a motion to stay the respondent husband's motion to change until he pays $17,672.33 in outstanding costs orders, and sought $10,000 as security for costs.

The husband argued the motion was premature as the validity of an agreement waving financial rights had not been determined.

The court found non-compliance with costs orders and that the husband habitually resides outside Ontario.

The court ordered the motion to change stayed unless the husband pays the costs and posts security in trust.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary child support, retroactive child support arrears, financial disclosure, and other relief.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion to adjourn and to vary a prior consent order requiring him to designate the mother as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy, alleging she had threatened his life.

The court ordered the father to provide his financial statement and pension valuation, fixed temporary child support at $1,183 per month based on his 2025 income, and ordered him to pay $11,694 in arrears.

The court dismissed the father's request to vary the life insurance beneficiary, finding no credible evidence of threats to his life.

The court also granted leave to amend pleadings and severed the divorce claim on consent.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that her application for statutory accident benefits was time-barred.

The appellant argued the insurer's notice of refusal did not comply with s. 54 of the SABS because it failed to detail all levels of appeal and misleadingly stated a hard two-year limitation period without explaining discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 54 only requires notice of the right to dispute the refusal at the Tribunal, not subsequent appeal rights.

The Court also found the notice was not misleading, as detailing discoverability principles could detract from the clarity of the warning and confuse claimants.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim against an immigration consultant for failing to obtain a US visa.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's requirement that the appellants provide their own certified interpreter, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no error in dismissing the claim due to the lack of expert evidence on the standard of care.

The court declined to award costs to the successful respondents to sanction their apparent use of Generative AI, which resulted in the citation of non-existent case law and rules in their factum.

The applicant sought judicial review of three by-law enforcement orders issued by the respondent township regarding a bamboo hedge, stored building materials, and a front fence extension.

The applicant argued the orders were unreasonable and that the enforcement process was procedurally unfair and biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the bamboo had grown into a non-compliant fence, the stored bricks and stones were building materials, and the trellis additions extended the fence height beyond permitted limits.

The court found no procedural unfairness or bias, noting that any potential unfairness from the denial of a review hearing was cured by the judicial review proceeding itself.

The appellant dentist appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The Committee found the appellant had sexual relations with two patients, failed to document informed consent, breached opioid prescribing guidelines, and directed staff to file false insurance claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors in principle.

The court upheld the mandatory revocation of the appellant's license and the Committee's costs award of over $450,000, and awarded $15,000 in costs for the appeal.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to restore his parenting time after the respondent mother withheld the children, alleging the paternal grandmother attacked their son with scissors and a knife.

The mother sought supervised parenting time.

The court found insufficient evidence to substantiate the mother's allegations of the attack and noted the mother improperly exercised self-help remedies by withholding the children.

The court ordered the restoration of the father's parenting time in accordance with the parties' Minutes of Settlement, with temporary safeguards including that the children not be left in the sole care of the grandmother, and granted the father make-up parenting time.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for interim parenting time with her seven-year-old daughter.

The mother was subject to criminal bail conditions prohibiting her from contacting or being within 500 metres of the child due to numerous criminal charges, including dangerous driving and assault.

The court declined to make an interim parenting order that conflicted with the criminal release orders, finding it inappropriate to make an order 'subject to bail variation'.

The court granted consent orders maintaining the child's schooling and medical care, and ordered a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The appellants, who provided negligent legal services to the respondent despite not being licensed to do so, appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent $41,000 in damages.

The appellants argued the motion judge decided the case on a novel theory of liability—failure to advise—that was not pleaded, denying them a fair opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the issue was clearly raised in the pleadings and motion materials.

The court also dismissed the appeal of the costs award, noting leave to appeal costs had not been sought.

The applicant father brought a motion for an order requiring the respondent mother to provide outstanding financial disclosure, including corporate financial statements and an updated Form 13.1 Financial Statement.

The court found that the respondent was not required to provide corporate statements for a partial fiscal year but ordered her to provide the statement for the completed fiscal year and an updated financial statement with proof of year-to-date income.

The court also admonished the respondent for uploading unfiled materials to Case Center and awarded costs of $4,000 to the applicant.

At a case conference, the court addressed temporary child support for two children.

The applicant father, residing in Bulgaria, had not paid child support since separation and failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

Based on bank deposits, the court imputed an annual income of $40,000 CAD to the applicant and ordered him to pay $609 CAD per month in temporary child support.

The court also noted the applicant's failure to pay $10,000 in outstanding costs orders and prohibited him from bringing further motions without prior judicial permission.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $6,037.59 following a motion for interim spousal support where success was divided.

The applicant argued the respondent's litigation conduct was unreasonable, including making uncorroborated allegations of abuse.

The court noted the respondent's lack of corroborating evidence but also found the applicant's claim for 7.5 years of retroactive spousal support on a temporary motion to be unreasonable.

Given the divided success favouring the respondent and the conduct of both parties, the court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs.

The Registrar appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that imposed conditions on the respondents' motor vehicle salesperson registrations rather than revoking them.

The respondents, principals of a car dealership, had failed to supervise employees who engaged in repeated dishonest conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LAT erred in principle by failing to ascribe appropriate regulatory responsibility to the respondents for the repeated misconduct and by failing to consider the overall context of the business operations.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a fresh hearing on remedy before a different adjudicator.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment that ordered primary residence and sole decision-making to the respondent mother, and required the father to maintain a $250,000 life insurance policy to secure child support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all parenting issues but noted a factual error regarding the existence of the $250,000 policy.

After the hearing, the appellant provided evidence that he had subsequently obtained the required insurance.

The court held that the trial judge's factual error was therefore not overriding and declined to remit the issue of security back to the trial court, leaving enforcement to the trial court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of reprisal.

The applicant had posted a negative online review about his former employer's shift assignment practices, prompting the employer to send a cease and desist letter threatening civil action.

The HRTO found it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had never claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Human Rights Code prior to the alleged threat.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision reasonable, as the anti-reprisal provisions protect access to the Tribunal, not public speech unconnected to a Code claim.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a dismissed action for delay and discharged CPLs, the respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court ordered the appellant estate trustee to pay costs personally, finding that he stood to benefit from a successful appeal because his law firm was owed $150,000 in legal fees by the deceased.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct, and fixed partial indemnity costs at $12,200.

The applicant challenged LAT and HRTO decisions arising from the denial of statutory accident benefits after the insurer relied on an IME report without producing the physician for cross-examination.

The court held that the LAT lacked jurisdiction to issue a second reconsideration decision more than a year later and while appeal and judicial review proceedings were already perfected, as that step was not taken within a reasonable time and offended functus officio and finality principles.

The court further accepted that the earlier LAT decisions could not stand because reliance on the challenged expert report without cross-examination breached procedural fairness.

The LAT and HRTO decisions were quashed and remitted, with costs of $15,000 awarded against the insurer on the LAT matter, but no costs awarded to the applicant on the HRTO matter.

The applicant wife sought a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty under s. 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Divorce Act.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars of the respondent's alleged cruel conduct and its impact on her mental or physical condition to meet the 'grave and weighty' standard.

The application for divorce on the grounds of cruelty was dismissed, but the matter was adjourned to allow the applicant to file a further affidavit after the one-year separation period had elapsed.