Mario D. Faieta

The applicant sought costs for several motions held earlier in the year.

The respondent failed to provide responding costs submissions.

The court found the applicant's behaviour on the motions reasonable, proportional, and primarily focused on the children's well-being, leading to successful orders.

Conversely, the respondent's behaviour was deemed unreasonable throughout and rose to the level of "bad faith" inflicting harm on the applicant and children by making them pawns in the litigation.

Applying the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis due to the respondent's bad faith, totaling $69,419.86, and ordered the respondent to pay an additional $4,485.00 to an expert witness, Ms. Linda Popielarczyk.

The applicant, Nadal Diya, sought bail pending an extradition hearing to the United States on charges of fraud and misuse of visas.

The applicant was arrested in Toronto on a provisional warrant.

The court considered the applicant's significant wealth, lack of ties to Canada, and history of using fraudulent passports as factors indicating a high flight risk.

While the applicant proposed a $10,000 (later $100,000) cash deposit and supervision by family friends, the court deemed this insufficient.

Applying modified bail principles for extradition cases, the court granted bail but imposed a significantly increased cash deposit of CDN $1,000,000, along with electronic monitoring and other conditions, to ensure the applicant's attendance.

The court addressed two motions.

The Respondent's "urgent" motion to vary a custody order and appoint counsel for the oldest son was dismissed due to non-compliance with Family Law Rules regarding notice, service, and the lack of actual urgency or exceptional circumstances.

The Applicant's Form 14B motion for leave to file an Amended Application was granted, as the Respondent had previously consented and no disadvantage was shown.

A second part of the Applicant's motion regarding children's items was deferred as largely moot.

Rachard Holder was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, pointing a firearm, and intentionally discharging a firearm, and by the judge of possession of a firearm contrary to an order.

The charges stemmed from a premeditated shotgun shooting of Steven Cseko, who had intervened in a domestic dispute.

The victim suffered catastrophic, permanent injuries.

The Crown sought a life sentence, while the defence proposed ten years.

The court found the shooting to be cold-blooded and senseless, with a lack of remorse from the offender, indicating a high likelihood of future dangerousness.

Considering aggravating factors such as the offender's escalating criminal record, breach of court orders, premeditation, and the horrific impact on the victim and community, the court imposed a life sentence for attempted murder.

The convictions for pointing a firearm and intentionally discharging a firearm were stayed under the Kienapple principle.

A concurrent one-year sentence was imposed for the breach of the weapons prohibition order.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA sample, and a non-communication order with the victim and his family.

The Applicant sought temporary sole custody and an order for the children's participation in the Family Bridges Program due to the Respondent father's ongoing disparagement of the Applicant and non-compliance with court orders, which was causing emotional harm to their three children.

The Respondent had previously failed to comply with support orders and parenting plan arrangements, leading to the temporary suspension of his access.

The court granted the Applicant temporary sole custody and ordered participation in the Family Bridges Program, with the Respondent to record phone calls and both parties to share upfront costs.

The court emphasized the children's best interests and the Respondent's continued disregard for court orders and the children's well-being.

The Crown applied to disqualify a lawyer, Mr. Goldstein, from assisting in the defence of Ms. Willett, the wife of his former client, Mr. Willett, whose trial was severed from hers.

The Crown argued a realistic risk of conflict of interest due to Mr. Goldstein's duties to his former client (Mr. Willett, whose appeal was pending) and his current client (Ms. Willett).

Ms. Willett and Mr. Willett asserted a joint defence and waived confidentiality, having received independent legal advice.

The court found a substantial risk that Ms. Willett's defence could inculpate Mr. Willett, undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application to remove Mr. Goldstein was granted.

The Crown brought a motion under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to permit three complainants (RF, GR, and RG) to testify by video link in a sexual abuse trial.

The accused, William Robert Metcalfe, consented to RF testifying by video link but opposed for GR and RG.

The court granted the application for RF and RG, but dismissed it for GR.

For GR, the court found that his willingness to travel and the relatively low cost did not justify video testimony.

For RG, the court balanced factors including his reluctance to attend, fear of job loss, and the limited value of in-person demeanour assessment, concluding that video link was appropriate to ensure the truth-seeking function of the trial without negatively impacting the accused's right to a fair trial.

The plaintiff sought to vary or set aside previous interlocutory orders made by Masters Short and Jolley, including orders setting aside a noting in default, refusing representation by a non-lawyer agent, and directing the Registrar not to note the defendant in default.

The plaintiff's motion was brought under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which the court found to be an improper use as the preconditions were not met and the time for appeal had expired.

The court also reviewed the merits of the plaintiff's grounds for challenging the orders and found no reviewable error by the Masters.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs.

The court considered costs for motions where both parties had partial success on disclosure issues.

The Applicant sought the Respondent's medical records, and the Respondent sought the Applicant's financial documents.

Both parties' conduct was deemed unreasonable, leading to the unnecessary hearing of the motions.

The Applicant's offers to settle did not meet the requirements for enhanced costs.

Given the divided success and unreasonable behaviour of both parties, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant sought a writ of mandamus to compel a Justice of the Peace to receive private informations without government-issued photo identification, arguing it infringed on his Indigenous identity and sovereignty.

The court found that the act of receiving an information and administering the oath is ministerial and not subject to judicial review.

Even if reviewable, the Justice of the Peace did not err in requiring reliable identification.

The court also noted the proposed prosecution was vexatious due to previous similar actions and the applicant's insistence on "Torah Law." The application for mandamus was dismissed.

This decision addresses a costs motion following a prior ruling where the Respondent was largely successful in obtaining interim child support, spousal support, and financial disclosure, while the Applicant's cross-motion to lift a preservation order was dismissed.

The Respondent sought full indemnity costs of $14,142.25, which the Applicant opposed, proposing $3,534.38 due to alleged partial success and excessive billing, and citing limited ability to pay.

The court found the Respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the final order, entitling her to full indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The Applicant's conduct, including non-payment of support and inadequate financial disclosure, was deemed unreasonable.

The court awarded the Respondent $13,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable within 30 days, and lifted a preservation order on the Applicant's RRSP assets to facilitate payment.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for calculating child and spousal support arrears following a 2002 consent order.

The court addressed the imputation of income, the methodology for calculating spousal support after children ceased to be "children of the marriage" and the tax treatment of lump sum spousal support arrears.

It was held that the applicant was not entitled to 60% of the family's net disposable income after child support obligations ended, and that a lump sum award of arrears of spousal support, representing amounts due under an existing order, was not required to be "netted down" for income tax deduction purposes as the Canada Revenue Agency permits such non-retroactive lump sum payments to be deducted by the payor.

The Applicant and Respondent brought motions for interim custody, access, and support.

The court addressed the temporary parenting plan, child support, and spousal support.

The parties had been living in a "nested" home post-separation, which led to significant conflict and negative impact on the children.

The court adopted a modified version of the Applicant's proposed parenting plan, which allocated more parenting time to the Applicant, and ordered the Respondent to attend counselling with a professional parenting specialist to improve his relationship with the children.

Child support was ordered based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and interim spousal support was ordered at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also made consent orders regarding the sale of the matrimonial home and division of proceeds.

In a family law application for custody and access, both parties brought motions for disclosure.

The applicant sought the respondent's medical and psychiatric records relating to his alcohol dependency and mental health issues.

The respondent sought the applicant's financial and employment records to determine her self-employment income for child support purposes.

The court ordered the respondent to produce his medical records related to mental health and alcohol dependency, finding that the best interests of the child outweighed his privacy concerns under the Ryan test for privilege.

The court also ordered the applicant to produce her bank statements for 2015, as she had not provided a financial statement for her business for that year.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, applied for the committal of the respondent for extradition to face a murder charge in Tennessee.

The respondent argued that his telephone confession to a US detective while he was in Canada constituted 'evidence gathered in Canada' under s. 32(2) of the Extradition Act, and should be excluded under the Charter.

The court held that evidence obtained by a foreign police officer via telephone from a person in Canada is gathered in the foreign jurisdiction, not in Canada.

The committal order was granted.

The appellants, owners of waterfront properties on Nottawasaga Bay, appealed a decision of the Coordinator in the Office of the Surveyor General confirming a municipal resurvey under the Surveys Act.

The resurvey extended two road allowances straight across accreted lands to the water's edge, effectively cutting off the appellants' water access.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding that the Coordinator's decision was unreasonable.

The Court held that the Surveys Act does not displace the common law principles of accretion, which dictate that accreted lands attach to riparian properties and should be equitably allocated.

The matter was remitted for a trial of an issue regarding whether the survey should be confirmed with or without amendments.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment where the plaintiff recovered $400,000 and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought $171,888.04 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the costs were disproportionate or that an assessment was required, fixing costs at $150,000 payable to the plaintiff.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother, alleging she failed to comply with the custody and access provisions of their parenting plan after their 13-year-old daughter refused to visit him.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the mother had not failed to openly support the parenting plan, and that the child's estrangement was largely due to the father's own conduct.

The court ordered family reunification counselling and requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, interim spousal support, and an order striking the respondent's pleadings for failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court ordered that the respondent's pleadings regarding support be struck if he fails to provide the outstanding corporate financial statements and tax returns by a specified date.

The court dismissed the claim for interim spousal support, finding insufficient evidence for a compensatory claim and noting that the applicant had earned a high income post-separation, negating a non-compensatory claim three years post-separation.

The court imputed an income of $51,000 to the applicant based on a vocational assessment and increased the respondent's child support obligation to $800 per month for their shared custody arrangement, along with a proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the applicant wife brought a motion to compel further production of documents and answers to undertakings from the respondent husband and his father, alleging they conspired to conceal the husband's income and assets.

The court dismissed the request for pre-2012 documents as irrelevant to the conspiracy claim.

However, the court ordered the mass production of post-2012 emails, finding the respondents' search terms too limited, and ordered the production of certain solicitor-client files, finding the father had waived privilege by relying on a specific privileged communication to defend against the conspiracy claim.