Mario D. Faieta

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action against the defendant company and its alleged director.

The company opposed the motion, arguing the mortgage was a 'fraudulent instrument' under the Land Titles Act because the director fraudulently held herself out as an officer of the company to obtain the mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that even if the allegations of fraud were true, the director was not a 'fictitious person' and did not hold herself out to be the registered owner of the property, meaning the mortgage did not meet the statutory definition of a fraudulent instrument.

The applicant father brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned rental property.

The respondent mother agreed to the sale but insisted it be sold privately to her mother, without a formal offer or specific price, arguing it would save real estate commission.

The court found no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant in seeking an open market sale.

Conversely, the respondent's demand to sell only to her mother was deemed oppressive.

The court also addressed the respondent's failure to attend the motion, affirming its duty to proceed justly.

The motion was granted, and the court ordered the rental property to be listed for sale on the open market with specific terms for realtor selection and cooperation.

The Applicant mother sought a temporary parenting order to resume a fixed parenting schedule, including overnight time, after two impaired driving incidents with children in the car.

The Respondent father had largely withheld the children due to safety concerns related to her alcohol abuse.

The court considered the children's best interests, the status quo, and the mother's efforts towards sobriety.

The court granted a modified parenting schedule with overnight access but imposed strict conditions, including supervision by the maternal grandfather for two months and mandatory use of the Soberlink Alcohol Monitoring System.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking sole decision-making authority for the child, discretion for parenting time, return of the child's documents, cooperation for passport renewal, and financial disclosure from the respondent father.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the previous temporary order, noting the child's strong desire for no contact with the father due to his past behaviour.

The court granted the mother temporary sole decision-making, made parenting time at the child's discretion, ordered the return of documents, dispensed with the father's consent for passport renewal, and ordered the father to provide outstanding financial disclosure.

The case was directed to a case conference and combined settlement/trial management conference for final resolution.

The applicant sought an annulment of her marriage to the respondent on grounds including non-cohabitation, non-consummation, and marriage under pressure due to religious and cultural beliefs.

The court granted the annulment, finding that the applicant's refusal to consummate the marriage was a predictable and rational consequence of her sincerely held religious belief that consummation should not occur until all stages of an Islamic marriage ceremony were completed, constituting an "invincible aversion" as per common law principles applied contextually to cultural norms.

The applicant, a mother, sought a restraining order against her adult son due to violent behaviour.

The motion was brought without notice to the respondent.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a restraining order was not available under the Family Law Act as the parties were not in a conjugal relationship.

Furthermore, the court declined to expand the scope of section 35(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act, determining that it is intended to support parenting orders, which was not the case here.

The court suggested that the applicant consider seeking a peace bond under the Criminal Code as an alternative remedy.

Following motions for an interim parenting order and a Form 14B motion for fresh evidence, the successful respondent mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant father argued no costs should be awarded or they should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court rejected the father's arguments, finding his settlement offers unreasonable and his Form 14B motion materials misleading.

The court awarded the respondent mother costs fixed at $23,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The moving party in a family law proceeding brought a Form 14B motion seeking financial disclosure from the responding party to support a claim for a reduction in spousal support based on a material change in circumstances.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing that a Form 14B motion was inappropriate for this request.

The court held that the motion was procedural and appropriate for a Form 14B motion, and ordered the responding party to provide the requested financial disclosure, including bank statements and property documentation.

No costs were awarded as the motion might have been avoided with better communication between counsel.

The applicant brought a motion for an order requiring the respondent to vacate her house.

The parties cohabited for about 12 months before separating.

The applicant had purchased the property from the respondent using her inheritance and was the sole registered owner.

The respondent refused to leave for 15 months post-separation, claiming an interest based on an alleged cohabitation agreement and unjust enrichment.

The court found no legal foundation for the respondent's continued possession and ordered him to vacate the property.

In a family law trial following a 37-year marriage, the court addressed spousal support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and the equalization of net family property.

The applicant wife, who was self-represented, sought spousal support and an equalization payment.

The respondent husband sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, arguing the applicant had recklessly depleted family assets through a severe gambling addiction.

The court ordered spousal support at 50% of the respondent's pension income.

However, finding that the applicant had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling, the court held that an equal division of net family property would shock the conscience of the court.

The court reduced the equalization payment to zero, ordered the sale of the jointly owned home, and directed a 60/40 split of the sale proceeds in favour of the respondent.

The applicant mother brought a motion for child support and an order noting the respondent father in default.

The respondent failed to provide financial disclosure despite requests and a previous court order.

Relying on the Supreme Court's direction in Colucci, the court ordered the respondent's Answer struck if he failed to provide the required disclosure by a specified date.

The court also imputed an annual income of $50,000 to the respondent based on his past earnings and median income data, ordering him to pay $755 per month in child support and 35% of section 7 expenses.

The applicant's claim for retroactive support was dismissed without prejudice as it could not be granted on a temporary motion.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the parties' two children from Quebec to Ontario, sole decision-making responsibility, and primary residence.

The respondent mother argued that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction and that the motion was not urgent.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the children were habitually resident in Ontario prior to their removal to Quebec, thereby granting Ontario jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court ordered temporary joint decision-making responsibility but adjourned the issues of primary residence and the return of the children to allow the parties to adduce further evidence.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders in a high-net-worth family law proceeding.

The parties separated after a traditional marriage where the applicant was the primary caregiver and the respondent was an entrepreneur with complex, international business interests.

The respondent failed to provide meaningful financial disclosure, claiming his finances were complex and he had lost everything, despite evidence of lavish spending.

The court ordered the respondent to provide comprehensive financial disclosure and serve expert valuation reports within 20 days.

The court also appointed an independent supervising solicitor to review quarantined documents found in the matrimonial home for relevance and privilege.

Given the respondent's lack of disclosure and unilateral financial actions, the court granted a preservation order restraining him from depleting his assets, subject to ordinary business exceptions.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the children, noting the respondent's frequent travel and lack of day-to-day involvement.

Finally, the court imputed an income of $1,200,000 to the respondent and ordered him to pay a lump sum of $1,700,000 for interim child and spousal support, citing the real risk of non-payment of periodic support.

The applicant wife brought a Form 14B motion to strike paragraphs of the respondent husband's Answer and to seal the motion materials.

The court found the motion was properly brought under Rule 14(10).

The court struck the impugned paragraphs of the Answer, finding them to be irrelevant, inflammatory, and a waste of time, seemingly included to embarrass the applicant.

The request for a sealing order was dismissed without prejudice as the applicant failed to provide legal support for the request.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking an order that the respondent husband provide dental practice appraisals to their jointly retained valuation expert, and for a $100,000 advance equalization payment or interim costs.

The court granted the request for the appraisals, finding the expert's request reasonable and necessary to properly value the respondent's dental practices.

However, the court dismissed the request for a further advance equalization payment, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic chance that the advance would not exceed the ultimate equalization amount, and failed to provide sufficient evidence of her need for the funds or the estimated future litigation costs.

The parties brought cross-motions seeking to impose specific terms for the sale of their matrimonial home, following several prior orders that had failed to result in a sale.

The applicant sought to restrict the respondent, who intended to bid on the property, from seeing other offers.

The respondent argued that real estate regulations required offers to be conveyed promptly.

The court held that the obligation to convey offers is subject to client direction and ordered a blind bid process where neither party would see the offers until a specified time, preventing the respondent from gaining an unfair right of first refusal.

The court imposed detailed terms regarding the listing agreement, showing times, and COVID-19 protocols to ensure the sale proceeded without further dispute.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, child support, a restraining order, and a vesting order for the matrimonial home in an uncontested trial.

The respondent father, who had a history of family violence and had relocated to Lebanon, did not participate.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and ordered supervised parenting time for the father.

The court imputed income to the father based on foreign rental properties and ordered ongoing child support.

However, the claims for section 7 expenses, lump sum child support, and a vesting order were adjourned due to insufficient evidence.

The respondent's solicitor brought an urgent motion to be removed as counsel of record shortly before a scheduled trial.

The respondent opposed the motion, desiring legal representation, but did not dispute the solicitor's evidence.

Applying the principles from Cunningham v Liles, the court granted the motion, noting that it must accept at face value counsel's evidence that withdrawal is sought for ethical reasons, even if it may result in a trial adjournment.

The respondent's motion for the return of the children to Scotland under the Hague Convention was previously dismissed.

The applicant sought costs of $99,809.24 on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour: the respondent filed improper reply evidence and made unfounded reports to child protection services, while the applicant removed the children from Scotland without the respondent's consent under the guise of a sham access arrangement.

Finding no bad faith or applicable offers to settle, the court declined to award full indemnity costs and ordered the respondent to pay costs of $40,000.

The moving party mother brought an urgent motion seeking permission to travel with the parties' two children to California for one month for work purposes.

The responding party father opposed the motion, citing safety concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the ban on non-essential travel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the travel might be essential for the mother's employment, it was not essential for the children.

The court concluded that the risks associated with international travel during the pandemic outweighed the benefits, and that the father was capable of caring for the children in Ontario during the mother's absence.