Mario D. Faieta

The applicant mother brought a motion for the immediate return of her two children from Tunisia, where the respondent father had taken them for a vacation and subsequently refused to return them to their habitual residence in Toronto.

The court determined that the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was not in force between Canada and Tunisia.

Exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court ordered the children's immediate return to the applicant's care in Toronto at the respondent's cost.

Ancillary orders included directing Canadian police services to assist in enforcement and granting leave for substituted service of documents on the respondent via email due to urgency and access to justice concerns.

The respondent was granted an opportunity to bring a motion to vary the order.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking the immediate return of her five-year-old daughter from the respondent father, who had unilaterally taken the child to Michigan, and an order for no face-to-face access.

Both parents had previously engaged in self-help by unilaterally breaching a consent order regarding custody and access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found both parents guilty of ignoring the consent order and exercising self-help, emphasizing the paramountcy of the child's best interests.

The court ordered the child's return to the applicant within eight days, granted the respondent father future parenting time within Ontario conditional on depositing his passport, and directed a case conference for further access issues.

The applicant mother brought an ex parte motion for an interim sole custody order (a 'chasing order') and an order for the return of her two children, who were allegedly wrongfully retained by the respondent father in Tunisia.

The court granted the mother interim sole custody and ordered the father to surrender the children's passports upon their return to Canada.

However, the court declined to order the children's return under the Hague Convention, noting that such an application must be brought in the jurisdiction where the children are located (Tunisia).

The court also dismissed requests to stay the Tunisian proceedings, sever the divorce, and permit substituted service via email.

The plaintiff, Mohmmad Danesh, and the defendants by counterclaim, ReMax Crossroads Realty Inc. and Michael Bury, brought motions for summary judgment in a dispute arising from a failed condominium purchase.

The vendor, Elahe Vahed, argued that a second extension to the closing date was invalid due to fabrication and non-compliance with the Statute of Frauds.

The court found that Vahed breached the agreement of purchase and sale by failing to close on the extended date, rejecting her arguments regarding fabrication and the Statute of Frauds due to solicitor's authority and part performance.

Danesh was awarded damages for out-of-pocket expenses and the return of a deposit.

Vahed's counterclaims against Danesh, ReMax, and Bury for general and punitive damages were dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an ex parte no-contact and no-communication order, seeking joint custody, supervised access, and regular contact with his children.

The court reviewed the respondent's history of criminal harassment, probation breaches, and continued unauthorized communication with the applicant mother and children.

While acknowledging the respondent's efforts in counselling, the court found it in the children's best interests to reinstate only limited, supervised communication via text message, subject to strict conditions and ongoing counselling.

The respondent's requests for joint custody and supervised access were denied.

The applicant mother was awarded $25,000 in costs due to the respondent's conduct necessitating the proceedings.

Hazelton Homes Corporation (Plaintiff) claimed beneficial ownership of two properties registered to Morteza Katebian, who had defaulted on mortgages held by Home Trust Company and Ivan Terziev and Elena Mechtcheriakova (Second Mortgagees).

Following the conversion of applications into an action, the defendants (Katebian, Payam, Home Trust, and Second Mortgagees) moved for security for costs against Hazelton.

The court found good reason to believe Hazelton's claim against Home Trust and the Second Mortgagees was frivolous and vexatious, and that Hazelton, a shell corporation, had insufficient assets.

The motion for security for costs was granted for Home Trust and the Second Mortgagees, with specific amounts ordered to be paid into court or credited from existing holdbacks.

Katebian and Payam's motion for security for costs was adjourned pending their delivery of a Statement of Defence.

Jennifer Leitch sought an order to immediately list and sell the matrimonial home (the "Farm") without Anthony Novac's consent and to retain the net proceeds.

Anthony opposed, seeking to participate in the sale and have proceeds held in trust, with certain amounts paid to him for costs and chattels.

The court found Anthony unreasonably withheld consent by imposing conditions.

The court authorized Jennifer to sell the Farm with sole authority over negotiations and closing, subject to agreed-upon terms for listing and a minimum price.

The net proceeds, after payment of a $5,000 Divisional Court costs order, are to be released to Jennifer, rejecting Anthony's request to hold them in trust or for immediate payment of other claimed amounts, to ensure Jennifer's access to justice for ongoing complex litigation.

The Applicant father sought an urgent motion to enforce a shared parenting schedule for his two children, which the Respondent mother had unilaterally suspended for five weeks due to her immunocompromised status and concerns about COVID-19 exposure.

The court applied principles from Ribeiro v Wright, emphasizing children's best interests and the need for specific evidence of non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The court found the mother's concerns largely overstated and unsupported, and her approach self-centred and undermining of the father-child relationship.

The motion was granted, restoring parenting time to the father with specific COVID-19 safety protocols.

K.S.P. Holdings Inc. (KSP) appealed a Master's decision that dismissed its motions to quash a summons to examine its counsel and to strike an expert affidavit.

KSP's underlying motion sought to stay the action due to Tallman Truck Centre Limited's (Tallman) alleged late disclosure of a litigation agreement with co-defendant Secure Capital Advisors Inc. The court found that the Master erred by allowing the examination of opposing counsel and admitting expert evidence on issues irrelevant to the abuse of process analysis, which, according to Handley Estate, focuses on immediate disclosure and does not require proof of prejudice.

The appeal was granted, quashing the summons and striking the affidavit.

This urgent motion concerned the temporary custody of a ten-year-old child, Melody, following the death of her mother.

The mother's will appointed her parents (Melody's maternal grandparents) as guardians, but they were unable to travel to Canada due to COVID-19 restrictions.

The applicants, including a family friend (Nhan Thien Lam) and the maternal grandparents, sought a temporary order granting custody and primary residence to Lam.

The respondent father, who had a history of violence and no contact with Melody for several years, opposed the motion.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the temporary order.

The court granted temporary custody and primary residence to Lam, finding it to be in the child's best interests, without prejudice to the father's ultimate position.

This urgent motion concerns the temporary and final custody of a ten-year-old child whose mother recently passed away.

The maternal grandparents and a family friend seek temporary custody for the family friend, followed by joint temporary and final custody for the maternal grandparents, with the intention of the child relocating to Vietnam.

The biological father has had no contact with the child since 2015.

The court deemed the matter urgent, directed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to provide services, and ordered the applicants to provide affidavit evidence of service on the father and to formally commence an Application.

The applicant mother brought a motion to suspend the respondent father's access to their child, AR, due to his work as an emergency room physician during the COVID-19 pandemic, or alternatively, to enforce the regular school-based access schedule.

The respondent father requested the holiday access schedule.

The court dismissed the motion to suspend access, finding the applicant's evidence inadequate to demonstrate a COVID-19 risk.

The court also rejected both parties' interpretations of the consent order's access provisions during school closures.

Instead, the court ordered equal, shared access on an alternating weekly basis until AR's school reopens, at which point the original school access schedule would resume.

The applicant father sought shared parenting time with his four-year-old daughter after separating from the respondent mother.

The mother resisted, citing concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and proposing a phased-in contact schedule with initial visits in the matrimonial home and a 14-day self-isolation period for the father.

The court granted the applicant's request for a shared and equal parenting plan, finding the mother's COVID-19 concerns unsubstantiated and not in the child's best interests, especially given her own conduct regarding safety protocols.

The court also waived the case conference requirement due to the urgency of establishing in-person parenting time.

In a defamation action arising from a book alleging the plaintiff engaged in workplace sexual harassment, the defendants brought a motion to anonymize the non-party complainant who made the allegations.

The complainant was summoned as a witness for an upcoming Anti-SLAPP motion and feared reputational harm and privacy violations if identified.

Applying the Sierra Club test, the court granted the motion, finding that the complainant's privacy interests were high and the salutary effects of the order outweighed any deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The plaintiffs, three Russian cyclists, sued the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Richard McLaren for damages, alleging they were falsely implicated in a state-sponsored doping scheme and wrongfully excluded from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had exclusive jurisdiction and that the action was an abuse of process.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that the essential character of the dispute fell within the broad arbitration clauses of the Olympic Charter and the athletes' entry forms.

The court also held that the action was an abuse of process as the plaintiffs were attempting to re-litigate a dispute they had already brought before the CAS.

The plaintiff, Stuart Weinstein, sued multiple government entities and organizations after failing to obtain a General Condominium Manager license following a training program funded by the Second Career Strategy.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the Amended Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being frivolous/vexatious, and also sought to quash summonses issued by the plaintiff.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts for his claims (breach of contract, negligence, intentional interference with economic relations, malfeasance in public office, breach of consumer protection laws) and that many allegations were an abuse of process.

The summonses were quashed as irrelevant and an abuse of process.

Leave to amend the claim was denied.

The applicant commercial tenant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent landlord from evicting it pending the hearing of its application.

The parties had been unable to agree on the rent for a five-year renewal period.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the renewal rate, irreparable harm if the tenant was evicted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

The injunction was granted, with the tenant ordered to pay an interim monthly rent.

The defendant agreed to purchase a house from the plaintiff for approximately $1.4 million but failed to close the transaction due to stricter mortgage rules and a decline in market value.

The plaintiff terminated the agreement, resold the property for a lower price, and sought summary judgment for the shortfall.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the defendant breached the contract and awarding the plaintiff $135,870.59 in damages.

The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the significant personal consequences for the defendant.

The plaintiffs purchased a pre-construction condominium unit from the defendant developer.

The tentative occupancy date was delayed by nearly 24 months, and the confirmed occupancy date was subsequently extended multiple times.

The plaintiffs were unable to secure mortgage financing and terminated the agreement, seeking the return of their deposit and damages for breach of contract.

The court found that while the developer breached the agreement by extending the confirmed occupancy date without valid unavoidable delays, the plaintiffs had affirmed the contract by continuing to press for performance.

The court dismissed the action and declined to grant relief from forfeiture, finding that the retained deposit did not constitute a windfall for the developer given its incurred costs.

The applicant pharmacy entered into an agreement to lease commercial space in the respondent's condominium building.

The agreement permitted the use of the premises as a pharmacy and family medical clinic.

Upon discovering the applicant intended to dispense methadone, the respondent attempted to impose a standard form lease containing onerous conditions not contemplated in the original agreement, and refused to grant possession unless signed.

The court held the agreement to lease was binding and enforceable, and the respondent breached the agreement by refusing possession.

A trial was directed to determine the applicant's damages.