Mario D. Faieta

Following a summary judgment motion where the respondent successfully argued that no advances were made under a valid mortgage, the self-represented respondent sought costs of $46,188.

The added respondents argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court applied the Family Law Rules and principles for self-represented litigants, fixing the respondent's hourly rate at $100 rather than the claimed $200-$300.

The court ordered the added respondents to pay costs of $18,000 to the respondent.

The parties separated after an 18-year marriage.

At trial, the court determined issues regarding the equalization of net family property, the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, and retroactive variation of child support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home and a jointly owned rental property, finding no malicious or oppressive conduct by the respondent to prevent the sale.

The court also determined the valuation of various disputed assets, including real estate, vehicles, jewelry, and household contents, often drawing adverse inferences against the applicant for selling assets without notice or consent.

Finally, the court reduced the respondent's child support arrears due to his low income and reliance on social assistance.

The respondent father brought a motion to retroactively terminate child support effective June 1, 2012, arguing the child was no longer a child of the marriage after completing her undergraduate degree.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion to strike the respondent's motion for failure to comply with previous court orders.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to strike.

The court also dismissed the father's motion for retroactive termination to 2012, finding he failed to provide effective notice and delayed seeking a variation while accumulating significant arrears.

On consent, child support was varied to end September 1, 2013.

The applicant sought costs of $10,771.37 following a successful motion for a temporary parenting schedule.

The respondent argued for no costs on the basis of divided success, as the schedule was limited to the period the parties resided in the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent's refusal to agree to a parenting schedule unreasonable, necessitating the motion.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $5,500 to the applicant.

The respondent mother sought costs of $17,122.13 on a full indemnity basis following her successful motion for retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The applicant father argued costs should be limited to $1,000.

The court found no bad faith by either party and determined the mother's offer to settle did not strictly meet the requirements of Rule 18(14).

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $10,000.

The applicant brought a motion for a refraining order to prevent the Family Responsibility Office from suspending his driver's licence due to over $726,000 in child and spousal support arrears.

A previous court order had prohibited the applicant from bringing any further motions until he complied with outstanding costs orders.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the motion was barred by the prior order and that the applicant failed to meet the test for a refraining order due to dubious financial statements.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for delay, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued the defendants should not receive costs due to their delay in bringing the motion to dismiss.

The court held the defendants were entitled to costs, but only on a partial indemnity basis, as the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Given the lengthy delay and the fact that the judges who dealt with the merits had retired, the court found exceptional circumstances warranted referring the costs for assessment rather than fixing them.

The appellant landlord brought a motion to vary a single judge's order that had dismissed her four ongoing proceedings against the respondent tenants.

The single judge had dismissed the proceedings because the appellant was absent, her husband was unauthorized to act as her agent, and the proceedings were improperly perfected.

On the motion to vary, the appellant was represented by counsel, curing the representation defect.

The Divisional Court granted the motion in part, permitting the statutory appeal to continue while dismissing the other duplicative proceedings.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision approving official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed limestone quarry.

The appellants argued the OMB breached procedural fairness during a partial re-hearing and misapprehended evidence regarding at-risk turtles and noise levels.

The Divisional Court dismissed these grounds, finding the appellants had consented to the re-hearing process and that the OMB's evidentiary findings were reasonable.

However, the Court granted the appeal on one issue, finding the OMB erred in law by proposing noise mitigation measures that might require access to private lands without evidence of feasibility, and remitted that issue to the OMB.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of age discrimination against his former employer.

The applicant alleged that his termination at age 46 was discriminatory and that the Tribunal made errors of fact and law in its findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no errors of law and holding that the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the applicant's performance and the employer's business reasons for termination were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, which alleged negligent engineering in the construction of a cogeneration station, had been dormant for several years following a successful appeal by the plaintiff in 2009.

The court found the delay to be inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial to the defendants, as several potential witnesses were no longer available.

The court dismissed the action for delay and confirmed its authority to award costs, directing the parties to provide further submissions on the costs issue.

The respondent mother brought a motion for retroactive child support and payment of section 7 special and extraordinary expenses.

The parties resolved custody and access, agreeing to a shared parenting arrangement.

The court ordered the applicant father to pay child support based on his actual income and found the claimed section 7 expenses to be proper and reasonable, ordering the father to pay his proportionate share.

The added parties (the wife's parents) brought a motion for summary judgment to declare the validity of a $400,000 mortgage registered against the matrimonial home.

The husband argued the funds advanced by the parents over several years were gifts, not loans, and that he signed the mortgage under duress.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determining on a balance of probabilities that the funds were gifts at the time they were transferred.

Although the mortgage itself was validly executed without duress or undue influence, the court held that no advances had been made under it, effectively granting summary judgment in favour of the husband.

In the context of a motion to change spousal support, both parties brought cross-motions seeking to compel the other to provide answers to outstanding undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The respondent claimed a catastrophic change in financial circumstances, including bankruptcy and the sale of his business, while alleging the applicant had undisclosed wealth.

The court reviewed the extensive lists of requested financial and corporate documents, applying the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Family Law Rules.

The court granted divided success, ordering both parties to produce certain relevant documents while dismissing requests that were overly broad, irrelevant, or already sufficiently answered.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order requiring the family to attend a reunification program to address the children's resistance to spending time with her.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing the program constituted 'treatment' requiring the children's consent under the Health Care Consent Act, and denying any alienation.

The court found the program did not constitute treatment and exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to order attendance, finding the father had inappropriately involved the children in the litigation and that the program was in their best interests.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in their direct action against the defendant insurer under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiffs had previously obtained a consent judgment against their tenant, who negligently caused a fire while repairing his automobile in the attached garage.

The defendant insurer denied coverage under the tenant's policy, relying on a motorized vehicle exclusion.

The court found that the omnibus exclusions, including the motorized vehicle exclusion, applied to the Tenants Legal Liability coverage.

The court also held that the tenant's maintenance of his vehicle constituted 'use' of a motorized vehicle and that there was an unbroken chain of causation between the maintenance and the fire.

The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a marriage contract (Maher) requiring the respondent to pay $60,000 in satisfaction of family property claims.

The respondent argued the contract was altered after signing and its terms were uncertain.

The court found the contract was validly executed and not altered.

However, the promise of '150 square metres of land in Canada' was void for uncertainty.

The promises of 14 gold coins and travel to Makka were sufficiently certain and valued at $4,606 and $11,240 respectively.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,846.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' negligence claim for mental distress arising from the death of a family member in a helicopter crash.

The defendants argued that common law precludes recovery for mental distress resulting from the negligently caused death of a human being unless the plaintiffs witnessed the accident or its aftermath.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, the court found that geographic, temporal, and relational proximity restrictions are not absolute bars to recovery.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding it was not plain and obvious that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions in response after his motion for state-funded counsel was dismissed.

The defendants submitted that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it duplicated a previously struck action regarding the prescription of Aldara and contained ridiculous allegations involving pharmaceutical weapons.

The court agreed, finding the claim lacked clarity and failed to plead a coherent cause of action, and dismissed the action.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs' claim, which alleged a fraudulent conveyance, was dismissed because they lacked standing under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unproved and serious allegations of fraud constituted reprehensible conduct warranting elevated costs.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $20,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.