Mario D. Faieta

The applicant brought a motion for disclosure of financial records and an order for $60,000 in interim disbursements to fund her family law litigation.

The parties consented to the disclosure order.

On the issue of interim disbursements, the court found that the respondent's income was likely much higher than reported, based on a valuator's report, and that the applicant lacked the resources to fund the complex litigation involving the respondent's family businesses.

Applying the test for interim disbursements, the court ordered the respondent to pay $60,000 to level the playing field.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action for want of jurisdiction, the defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiff argued she should not pay costs because she had offered to discontinue the action and the defendants demanded an overly broad release.

The court awarded the Toronto Parking Authority $20,000 in partial indemnity costs.

However, the court declined to award costs to the individual defendant, finding that doing so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given his reprehensible conduct that gave rise to the action.

The moving party father brought a motion under the Hague Convention for the return of his two children to Scotland, alleging the responding party mother wrongfully removed them to Ontario.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine habitual residence, finding that the older child was habitually resident in Canada and the mother was the focal point of the infant child's life.

The court also considered the exceptions under Article 13 of the Hague Convention, finding that while the father exercised custody rights and did not consent to the removal, there was no grave risk of harm.

The motion for the return of the children was dismissed.

The parties separated after eight years of marriage and have one child with Type 1 diabetes.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief regarding parenting, support, and the matrimonial home.

The court ordered joint decision-making and a graduated parenting schedule leading to equal time.

For support purposes, the court imputed an income of $25,000 to the applicant and determined the respondent's income at $1,192,666 based on a three-year average, excluding certain non-recurring amounts.

The court ordered interim child and spousal support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and an advance of $120,000 to the applicant for interim disbursements.

The plaintiff, Fransic Battiston, sought costs of $162,504.90 after successfully obtaining judgment against Microsoft Canada Inc. for wrongful dismissal.

The defendant argued for a reduction in costs, claiming partial success on some issues and questioning the reasonableness of the hours billed.

The court found the plaintiff to be the successful party, rejecting the defendant's argument of divided success.

However, the court denied the plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity costs due to the plaintiff's failure to be forthright in disclosing the amount of costs when asked during Rule 49 settlement offer negotiations.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $120,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff, a unionized employee, brought a tort action against her employer (Toronto Parking Authority) and a co-worker (Vito Ditta) for damages arising from alleged workplace sexual assault and harassment.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction as the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute concerned workplace violence and harassment, which was covered by the collective agreement and the employer's workplace policies.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's arguments regarding a Charter section 15 violation and a remedial gap, concluding that the dispute was exclusively arbitrable.

The Applicant sought divorce, sole custody, supervised access for the Respondent, child support, unequal division of net family property, and a vesting order for the matrimonial home.

The court granted the parenting orders, including sole decision-making for the Applicant and supervised parenting time for the Respondent, based on the children's best interests and the Respondent's history of mental illness and family violence.

Claims for child support, unequal division of property, and a vesting order were adjourned due to insufficient evidence, specifically the lack of a Net Family Property Statement and a proper valuation of the matrimonial home.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking orders to compel the respondent husband to provide extensive financial disclosure, answer outstanding undertakings, and pay support arrears.

The case highlighted the respondent's long history of non-compliance with previous disclosure orders.

The court emphasized the fundamental importance of financial disclosure in family law, citing appellate decisions that characterize non-disclosure as "the cancer of family law." The motion was largely granted, with the court ordering specific disclosure by set deadlines and imposing a condition that the respondent could not take further steps in the proceeding until he complied with certain orders, including providing proof of life insurance and a verifying affidavit.

The defendants, Morteza Katebian and Payam Katebian, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with three prior costs orders, including an order for additional security for costs.

The plaintiff argued the action had considerable merit, they were impecunious, and funds were frozen due to ongoing litigation.

The court found the plaintiff's claim of considerable merit unconvincing and their impecuniosity argument belated.

While acknowledging the severity of dismissal, the court granted the plaintiff a final opportunity until April 1, 2021, to comply with the outstanding costs orders, failing which the defendants could move for dismissal without notice.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of her 13-year-old son, who was withheld by the applicant father following the Christmas holidays in breach of a 2015 consent order.

The father brought a cross-motion to vary the order, alleging the child was emotionally abused by the mother and her partner.

The court found the father's allegations lacked credibility and particulars, and that he had engaged in inappropriate self-help tactics.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the mother, directed that the father's access be supervised, and adjourned the father's cross-motion pending an assessment.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion for temporary child support.

The respondent opposed the sale, seeking to purchase the applicant's interest, but failed to provide proof of financing or complete financial disclosure.

The court ordered the applicant to pay temporary child support of $475 per month and granted the applicant sole authority to list and sell the matrimonial home, finding no oppressive conduct or prejudice to the respondent's Family Law Act claims.

The plaintiff commenced an action claiming beneficial ownership of two properties and seeking restitution for mortgage arrears it paid to stay writs of possession.

The defendant mortgagees moved for summary judgment to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to strike the claim regarding Interest Act violations.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial on unjust enrichment because the plaintiff suffered no deprivation and a prior court order provided a juristic reason for the payments.

The court also struck the Interest Act claim as an abuse of process because it was already being litigated in another proceeding.

The applicant sought a divorce and judgment in accordance with a marriage contract signed in 1991.

The respondent husband sought to set aside the marriage contract, claiming inadequate financial disclosure, lack of understanding, duress, and unconscionability, or alternatively, rectification of a unilateral mistake regarding his entitlement to the matrimonial home's increased value.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding he was aware of the applicant's assets, received independent legal advice, and faced no duress or exploitation.

The marriage contract was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay $85,000 in costs.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to change the children's school from Sloane Public School to Birch Cliff Heights Public School due to concerns about COVID-19, as Sloane was located in a high-risk neighbourhood.

The parties had joint custody and had previously agreed the children would attend Sloane.

The court declined to take judicial notice of several specific medical and statistical assertions regarding COVID-19 and dismissed the applicant's motion to introduce fresh evidence.

Applying the best interests of the child test for changing schools and educational plans during a pandemic, the court found the applicant failed to provide compelling and cogent evidence that a change of schools was warranted.

The motion was dismissed, and the children were ordered to continue attending Sloane.

MacDonald & Partners LLP brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record for the applicant and respondent in consolidated civil and family law proceedings.

The clients opposed the motion and sought an adjournment.

The court found a fundamental breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, including an inability to obtain adequate instructions and a breakdown in communications.

Applying the principles from Cunningham v. Lilles, the court granted the motion to remove counsel, finding it would not cause serious harm to the administration of justice, and dismissed the clients' cross-motion for an adjournment.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 37 to vary or set aside the Divisional Court's final costs disposition in the underlying application.

The applicant argued that the court's costs reasons did not address several of her submissions.

The court dismissed the motion without requiring a response from the respondent, finding it manifestly devoid of merit.

The court held that it had considered all submissions in its original costs decision and was now functus officio, noting that any remedy must be sought in the Court of Appeal.

Aeon Sodding Corp. sued The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) for breach of contract after discovering that a "legal professional" it had retained, Steven Mann, was a fraudster who had performed no work despite receiving over $430,000 via an RBC Visa card.

Aeon sought a chargeback from RBC, which was denied due to time limits under Visa rules.

RBC brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Aeon's action.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that RBC exercised reasonable care in handling the chargeback request and that Aeon's claim was barred by a verification clause in the Visa Agreement, which required disputes to be raised within 30 days of the statement period.

The applicant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father for failing to return their two sons to Toronto by a specified date, in contravention of a prior court order.

The respondent filed a cross-motion seeking to vary the order, citing expired passports as the reason for non-compliance.

The court, without deciding the contempt or variation motions, issued an immediate order directing the respondent to attend the Canadian Embassy in Tunisia to obtain emergency travel documents for the children and to provide proof of compliance to the applicant.

Both the contempt motion and the cross-motion were adjourned to a later date.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to set aside ex parte interim orders, obtain joint custody, shared parenting, and permit the children to remain in Tunisia, citing cultural values and perceived lower COVID-19 risks.

The applicant mother had previously obtained ex parte orders for interim sole custody and the return of the children to Toronto, following the respondent's refusal to return them after a vacation.

The court found the children's habitual residence to be Toronto, as conceded by the respondent, and dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no justification to set aside or vary the prior orders.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to Toronto and scheduled a case conference.

The plaintiff, a long-term employee, was terminated without cause.

The trial addressed the appropriate notice period, entitlement to cash bonuses and merit increases (both for the fiscal year of termination and during the notice period), entitlement to vesting of unvested stock awards, and the defendant's claim of failure to mitigate damages.

The court awarded a 23.75-month notice period, damages for lost bonus and merit increases during the notice period, and damages for unvested stock awards, finding the termination provisions in the stock agreements unenforceable due to lack of proper notice.

The claim for a bonus for the fiscal year of termination was dismissed, and the defendant failed to prove a failure to mitigate.