Mario D. Faieta

The applicant sought a divorce, spousal support, imputation of income, and reimbursement for various debts in an uncontested trial.

The court granted the divorce order but found the applicant's evidence insufficient to make determinations on the financial and property claims.

The court noted that an uncontested trial is not a rubber stamp and requires sufficient evidence and legal submissions.

The applicant was granted leave to file additional evidence, a DivorceMate calculation, and a factum to support her remaining claims.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's decision dismissing her motion to change child support and the related costs order.

The trial judge had found no material change in circumstances regarding the respondent father's income, declining to impute additional income for alleged undeclared cash, business deductions, or proceeds from the sale of a home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of the respondent's income and disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $7,500.

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's order dismissing the action for delay and discharging certificates of pending litigation.

The underlying action involved allegations of misappropriated funds and breach of trust by the deceased plaintiff's family members.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Associate Justice's conclusions that the delay was inexcusable and that the loss of the plaintiff's capacity and subsequent death caused actual prejudice, making a fair trial impossible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, an American web-based videoconference provider, sought judicial review of Ontario Health's refusal to verify its platform as a 'Verified Virtual Visit Solution', which prevented Ontario physicians from billing OHIP for services rendered using the platform.

Ontario Health required the applicant to store data in Canada, asserting the platform collected personal health information.

The Divisional Court held that the data residency requirement and the related OHIP payment rule were not ultra vires.

While the court found Ontario Health's conclusion that the applicant collected personal health information to be unreasonable, it ultimately dismissed the application because the applicant failed to meet other mandatory technical and privacy assessment requirements.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 24-year traditional marriage.

The respondent argued that the applicant's income should be imputed to full-time minimum wage and that support should be reduced due to alleged misconduct.

The court declined to impute income, finding no evidentiary basis to establish intentional unemployment given the applicant's age, lack of work history, and health conditions.

The court also rejected the misconduct argument.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, amounting to $4,236 per month.

Claims for retroactive support and health benefits were dismissed without prejudice to be determined at trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's Answer under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules for his failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders and child support obligations.

The respondent, who had moved to Dubai and ceased communicating with the children, did not appear or file responding materials.

The court found the outstanding disclosure was extensive and the respondent's true financial circumstances were unknown.

Applying the test from Mullin v. Sherlock, the court concluded no other remedy would suffice, struck the Answer, and permitted the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The appellant father sought a stay pending appeal of retroactive child support and costs orders, reinstatement of his suspended driver's licence, and a refraining order against further federal enforcement measures.

The court held that the appeal met the low serious-issue threshold in relation to the application of retroactive support principles and the departure from the presumptive three-year period, but the interests of justice did not favour a stay because the balance of convenience, clean hands, and delay all weighed against the moving party.

Relief under the support-enforcement scheme was also denied because the moving party had not satisfied the statutory conditions for driver's licence reinstatement or for preventing a federal licence denial application.

The court nonetheless directed that monies paid to the Director in excess of the prior unstayed costs order and any costs ordered on the motion be held pending disposition of the appeal.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's Answer under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules for failure to comply with prior disclosure orders.

The respondent had failed to retain an expert for an income analysis and valuation as ordered, and had only partially complied with a prior order for financial disclosure.

The court found that while non-compliance was established, striking the Answer was not yet warranted given partial compliance.

The respondent was given a final opportunity to comply with specific deadlines, failing which his Answer would be automatically struck on all issues except parenting.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the applicant.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's family law application pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules for failure to comply with orders for child support and costs totalling $31,606.50.

The court applied the three-part test from Van v. Palombi and found triggering events were established given the father's complete failure to make voluntary child support payments and non-compliance with multiple costs orders.

Rather than striking the application outright, the court imposed a conditional order requiring payment of $35,106.50 (including costs of the motion) by a specified date, failing which the application would be struck and the matter would proceed on an uncontested basis.

The 92-year-old appellant suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits to modify her daughter's home, where she intended to move to receive 24-hour care.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, holding that the appellant first had to prove her existing condominium could not be modified.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by imposing an unlegislated threshold and adopting an unduly narrow interpretation of 'existing home' under section 16 of the SABS.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurer was ordered to pay the claimed benefits immediately.

The applicant father brought a motion to enforce a final order regarding their child's school placement, seeking an order that the child attend Jean Lumb Public School and that he be granted interim final decision-making authority over education.

The respondent mother had unilaterally enrolled the child in a different school without consulting the father or attending mediation, breaching the final order.

The court declined to order a change of school to avoid further disruption to the child, but applied Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to sanction the mother by suspending her final decision-making authority over education pending the hearing of the parties' motions to change.

On a family law motion, the moving party sought interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home pending trial under ss. 19 and 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court reviewed the statutory factors, including the children’s best interests, existing orders, financial circumstances, availability of alternative accommodation, and allegations of violence.

The evidentiary record was materially conflicting, lacked corroboration on key allegations, and did not permit credibility findings on the paper record.

The court found no sufficient basis to conclude that continued shared occupation posed an adverse impact warranting interim exclusive possession.

The motion was dismissed and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the non-moving party.

At a case conference, the applicant mother sought an order for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent father opposed the sale, wishing to purchase the applicant's interest, and raised claims for retroactive support and equalization.

The court found it had jurisdiction to order the sale at a case conference under the Family Law Rules.

Applying the test from Marchese, the court held the applicant had a prima facie right to the sale, and the respondent failed to demonstrate any malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct to defeat that right.

The court ordered the sale, with a brief window for the respondent to negotiate a buyout.

Following an eleven-day trial regarding the validity of a holograph codicil and the ownership of investment accounts, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought to have her costs paid from the estate, arguing she acted reasonably in seeking to administer the estate.

The court rejected this argument, finding she procured the invalid codicil in suspicious circumstances and for her sole benefit.

Applying the 'loser pays' principle, the court ordered the applicant to personally pay the respondents' costs, fixed at $2,217,768.69, taking into account the complexity of the proceeding and the respondents' offers to settle.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld a Hearing Division finding of professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when his request for an adjournment was refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Division applied the correct standard of review and made no error in concluding that the Hearing Division's refusal to grant an adjournment did not breach procedural fairness.

The court also upheld the findings of professional misconduct and the penalty of an indefinite suspension.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent contractor damages for additional construction work performed outside the scope of their written agreement.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing to admit a late affidavit, failing to apply the correct tests for oral contracts and quantum meruit, and providing insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised trial management discretion to exclude the late affidavit, reasonably valued the additional work at the contractor's regular rates under quantum meruit principles, and provided adequate reasons for the decision.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her after a cooking fire caused extensive damage to the residential complex.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to hear evidence that the landlord illegally locked her out of the unit after repairs were completed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to permit evidence of the alleged lockout prevented it from considering all circumstances as required by section 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The eviction order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Board.

The appellant and respondent, former common law spouses, co-owned a cottage property.

The respondent sought an order for the sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The application judge ordered the sale, including a term requiring any purchaser to grant a right-of-way to neighbouring property owners, reflecting the original purchase agreement.

The appellant appealed the inclusion of this term and the award of full indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the sale term, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that omitting the term would create uncertainty and reduce the sale price.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, varying the award from full to substantial indemnity because the application judge erroneously relied on an undertaking that did not apply to the proceeding.

The moving party sought to set aside an interlocutory decision of Papageorgiou J. that declined to schedule appeals of interlocutory decisions made by Associate Justices.

The Divisional Court treated the request as a motion for leave to appeal.

The court denied leave to appeal without costs, noting that the proposed appeals of the Associate Justices' decisions were within the jurisdiction of a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice and had already been disposed of, with no further appeal proceedings available.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting an eviction order for non-payment of rent exceeding $20,000.

The applicants failed to file required court documents, failed to serve a notice of constitutional question, and failed to comply with an interim stay order requiring rental payments.

At the hearing, the attending applicant advanced pseudolegal arguments regarding his identity as a private beneficial owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to comply with directions and failed to show the application should be granted on the merits.