Mario D. Faieta

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a temporary order for primary care of the child and access to the matrimonial home for appraisal.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought an order to relocate with the child to Windsor, Ontario.

The court maintained the child's primary residence with the mother but granted the father significant temporary parenting time, including overnights, based on the child's best interests and the principle of maximum contact.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate and ordered her to provide the father's appraiser access to the matrimonial home.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking permission to travel to Jamaica with his six-year-old son.

The applicant mother opposed, citing concerns about abduction risk, safety, and the child's stated preference.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children’s Law Reform Act, found insufficient evidence to support the mother's fears regarding abduction or safety.

The motion was granted, allowing the father to travel with the child, and the mother's consent was dispensed with.

The applicant was also ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

The Applicant mother's motion to bifurcate the trial was settled by consent.

The Respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking leave to compel the immediate partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home or to obtain a $200,000 line of credit secured against his share.

The court dismissed the Respondent's cross-motion, primarily because he failed to obtain prior leave as mandated by a previous court order.

Addressing the merits, the court found that selling the matrimonial home would prejudice the Applicant's claims and was not in the child's best interests.

Furthermore, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to compel the encumbrance of the matrimonial home against the Applicant's objection.

The applicant sought temporary orders for imputation of income, child support, and spousal support, while the respondent brought a cross-motion for increased parenting time.

The court imputed an income of $60,000 per year to the respondent, ordered interim child support of $915 per month, and dismissed the applicant's claim for interim spousal support due to disputed facts.

The respondent's request for increased overnight parenting time was granted, as it was deemed in the children's best interests.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary sealing orders, publication bans, exclusion of the public from proceedings, and initialization of names.

The primary purpose of these orders was to prevent the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from becoming aware of a multi-million dollar tax liability, thereby preserving the applicant's ability to apply to the CRA's Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP).

The tax liability allegedly arose from the respondent father's financial actions during the marriage, including failing to file tax returns for a company in which the applicant was a shareholder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that preventing financial harm to children by hiding tax liability from the CRA was not an "important public interest" sufficient to override the open court principle under the *Sherman Estate* test.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a parenting order to increase his parenting time with his 10-year-old son, seeking equal time during summers immediately and during the school year from Grade 7.

He argued a material change in circumstances due to his increased work-from-home flexibility and the child's age.

The respondent mother opposed, asserting no material change and potential disruption to the child's routine.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding he failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, as his work flexibility lacked sufficient detail and the child's aging alone was not determinative.

The respondent's request for section 7 expenses was also dismissed as not properly before the court.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

Paula Bateman, former counsel for the Applicant, brought a motion for leave to make costs submissions for the period she represented the Applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Ms. Bateman, as neither a party nor current counsel, lacked standing to bring such a motion under the Family Law Rules.

The court also noted the motion was unnecessary as her bills were included in the Applicant's costs submissions.

The court ordered Ms. Bateman to pay costs of $1,000 to the Respondent.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to remove a fraudulent charge on a jointly owned rental property, obtain a no-dealings order, and terminate child support payments.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with court orders regarding the property's sale and had registered a $650,000 charge in favour of her mother without evidence of a legitimate loan, seemingly to frustrate the sale.

The court found the charge to be a fraudulent conveyance, declared it null and void, and ordered its removal.

It also granted a no-dealings order for both the rental property and the matrimonial home and terminated child support retroactively, as the children had primarily resided with the applicant since September 2022, constituting a substantial change in circumstances.

Both the Applicant and Respondent brought motions seeking an interim variation of the summer parenting time schedule established by a final order.

The court applied the test for interim variation, which requires strong prima facie proof of a material change in circumstances, an important parenting issue, urgent circumstances, and the remedy being in the child's best interests.

The court found that neither party had demonstrated a strong prima facie proof of a material change in circumstances.

Consequently, both motions were dismissed, and the provisions of the original Final Order were directed to govern the summer schedule, with specific timelines for the parties to make their selections.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the Applicant father's Hague Convention application for the return of his daughter to Florida.

The Respondent mother sought $64,379.73 in full indemnity costs and requested the order be enforceable as a support order.

The court applied the principles of costs in family law, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

It found the Respondent's counsel's billed time excessive and dismissed the claim for full indemnity costs, as no basis under the Family Law Rules was established.

The request to deem the costs a support order was also denied, as the original application did not involve support issues.

The court awarded the Respondent $35,000.00 in costs.

The respondent mother brought a motion to adjourn the applicant father's application for the return of their two children, who she had wrongfully retained in Colombia.

The court considered the factors for granting an adjournment, emphasizing the best interests of the children and the need for timely resolution in international child abduction cases.

The court found that the respondent was manufacturing delay and dismissed the motion for adjournment, directing her counsel to proceed with the hearing.

The Applicant father's motion for contempt was adjourned.

At the outset of the contempt motion, the Respondent mother brought motions for recusal and to vacate eleven prior orders.

The court heard the recusal motion, with reasons to follow separately.

The motion to vacate was granted leave in part, specifically to vacate certain orders but not to strike the Applicant's Application, and was adjourned for the Respondent to prepare a Factum.

The Applicant's contempt motion was also adjourned.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion brought by Robin Seligman in a mortgage enforcement action.

Seligman sought costs, as did Sonia Lafontaine and Arthur Froom.

The court awarded costs of $43,196.60, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, to Robin Seligman, to be paid solely by 1285310 Ontario Limited.

The claims for costs by Sonia Lafontaine and Arthur Froom were dismissed, as neither was successful in the underlying motion.

The applicant father brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned rental property.

The respondent mother agreed to the sale but insisted it be sold privately to her mother, without a formal offer or specific price, arguing it would save real estate commission.

The court found no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant in seeking an open market sale.

Conversely, the respondent's demand to sell only to her mother was deemed oppressive.

The court also addressed the respondent's failure to attend the motion, affirming its duty to proceed justly.

The motion was granted, and the court ordered the rental property to be listed for sale on the open market with specific terms for realtor selection and cooperation.

The Applicant mother sought a temporary parenting order to resume a fixed parenting schedule, including overnight time, after two impaired driving incidents with children in the car.

The Respondent father had largely withheld the children due to safety concerns related to her alcohol abuse.

The court considered the children's best interests, the status quo, and the mother's efforts towards sobriety.

The court granted a modified parenting schedule with overnight access but imposed strict conditions, including supervision by the maternal grandfather for two months and mandatory use of the Soberlink Alcohol Monitoring System.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking sole decision-making authority for the child, discretion for parenting time, return of the child's documents, cooperation for passport renewal, and financial disclosure from the respondent father.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the previous temporary order, noting the child's strong desire for no contact with the father due to his past behaviour.

The court granted the mother temporary sole decision-making, made parenting time at the child's discretion, ordered the return of documents, dispensed with the father's consent for passport renewal, and ordered the father to provide outstanding financial disclosure.

The case was directed to a case conference and combined settlement/trial management conference for final resolution.

The applicant sought an annulment of her marriage to the respondent on grounds including non-cohabitation, non-consummation, and marriage under pressure due to religious and cultural beliefs.

The court granted the annulment, finding that the applicant's refusal to consummate the marriage was a predictable and rational consequence of her sincerely held religious belief that consummation should not occur until all stages of an Islamic marriage ceremony were completed, constituting an "invincible aversion" as per common law principles applied contextually to cultural norms.

The applicant, a mother, sought a restraining order against her adult son due to violent behaviour.

The motion was brought without notice to the respondent.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a restraining order was not available under the Family Law Act as the parties were not in a conjugal relationship.

Furthermore, the court declined to expand the scope of section 35(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act, determining that it is intended to support parenting orders, which was not the case here.

The court suggested that the applicant consider seeking a peace bond under the Criminal Code as an alternative remedy.

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.