Marvin Kurz

The applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent, an estate trustee.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the respondent had made good faith efforts to comply with a previous order.

The court then considered costs, noting the respondent's offer to settle closely matched the decision.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's partial and substantial indemnity costs, totaling $21,766.76.

The court declined to order the estate to pay the remainder of the respondent's full indemnity costs, citing some faults on the respondent's part, but primarily emphasizing the unnecessary nature of the applicant's motion.

The defendants moved to prohibit the plaintiff, Bank of Montreal (BMO), from relying on documents released by their former lawyer, Susan Ambrose, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

BMO opposed, arguing privilege was waived or lost due to an illegal purpose (fraudulent transfer of property).

The court found that while Roufat Iskenderov initially held privilege, Elena Lazareva did not.

Privilege for two documents was waived by the defendants' own disclosure in affidavits of documents.

Furthermore, the privilege for all Ambrose documents was lost due to a prima facie case that Roufat may have used the separation agreement drafted by Ms. Ambrose as cover for a fraudulent transaction to defeat BMO's claims.

The motion to prohibit reliance on the documents was largely dismissed, allowing BMO to use the documents for the purpose of arguing fraudulent conveyance.

This final judgment addresses the ongoing dispute among Jennie Carey's adult children regarding her guardianship for personal care and property.

Jennie, 91 and suffering from dementia, was found incapable of making her own decisions.

The court's interim decision had appointed Robert and Arthur as co-guardians for personal care, and Robert, Arthur, and Edward as co-guardians for property.

However, due to severe animosity and unilateral actions by both Robert and Arthur, the co-guardians were unable to cooperate.

The court found Arthur's financial conduct inexcusable and Robert's unilateral care plans not in Jennie's best interest.

Consequently, the court restructured the guardianship: Robert Carey was appointed sole guardian for Jennie's property, while Arthur Carey and Edward Carey were appointed co-guardians for Jennie's personal care.

The decision emphasizes the need for guardians to prioritize the incapable person's best interests over personal conflicts.

The applicants sought an oppression remedy and monetary judgment against the respondents, alleging a scheme where the individual respondent and related corporations duped the applicants into investing over $1.6 million in a modular home business.

The investment was diverted through a "shell game" of corporations, depriving the applicants of their promised equity interest and decision-making role.

The court found clear self-dealing and oppression, granting the applicants the requested relief, including a monetary judgment equivalent to their investment.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference seeking a restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and its immediate partition and sale.

The respondent husband consented to exclusive possession but opposed the remaining relief.

The court found no urgency to justify hearing the motion for a restraining order before a case conference.

However, the court held that it was in the interests of justice to order the immediate partition and sale of the home, as the wife had a prima facie right to it, the husband had previously requested the same relief in his pleadings, and delaying the inevitable order would only increase costs and waste judicial resources.

Katherine sought full indemnity costs after a successful spousal support trial.

Christopher argued for no costs or a fraction.

The court found Katherine "far more successful" on key issues and her offers more reasonable, while Christopher's behavior was "far less reasonable" including unilaterally withdrawing from a joint retainer, tardy disclosure, and deliberately disobeying a temporary support order.

The court clarified that the recent amendment to Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, allowing a trial judge to award costs for prior steps even if not reserved, is procedural and applies retroactively.

However, the judge deferred the final determination of costs for prior conferences, requesting further submissions from both parties.

The applicant sought divorce, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family properties from the respondent.

The primary issue was whether income should be imputed to the respondent due to intentional underemployment or unemployment.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed, imputing an income of $83,394 per year based on his prior work history and admissions.

The court fixed retroactive spousal support for a specific period and left open further spousal support calculations.

An equalization payment of $10,149.26 was ordered to the applicant.

The court also determined the respondent's proportionate share for future Section 7 educational expenses.

The applicants sought to remove Arthur and Douglas Carey as attorneys for property and personal care for their mother, Jennie Carey, and to appoint Robert Carey as guardian, alleging financial impropriety and isolation.

The court found strong evidence of misconduct and neglect regarding property management, including failure to account for funds and non-compliance with disclosure orders.

While Jennie was physically well cared for and wished to remain with Arthur and Douglas, their failure to foster family contact was a breach of personal care duties.

The court removed Arthur and Douglas as sole attorneys.

For property, Arthur, Robert, and Edward Carey were appointed joint guardians.

For personal care, Arthur and Robert were appointed joint guardians.

The court emphasized a nuanced approach to balance Jennie's well-being and wishes with the need for financial oversight and family contact.

The court heard three motions for summary judgment in two related actions concerning second and third mortgages on a property.

The defendant, Hassan Talani, challenged the validity of these mortgages, claiming the property was a matrimonial home requiring spousal consent and that prior mortgages prohibited subsequent encumbrances.

He also counterclaimed against his real estate lawyer, Laman Meshadiyeva, alleging negligence and exploitation of a gambling addiction.

The court rejected Talani's arguments, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the matrimonial home status or the validity of the mortgages.

The court also dismissed Talani's counterclaim against Meshadiyeva due to lack of evidence.

Partial summary judgment was deemed appropriate, removing the mortgagees and lawyer from the litigation while allowing other discrete claims to proceed.

The appellant developer appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering it to pay the respondent purchaser $15,000 for breach of contract.

The dispute arose after the purchaser sought to terminate a condominium purchase agreement.

The parties signed an incentive letter promising the purchaser $15,000 upon the project's closing, and later signed a mutual release.

On appeal, the developer argued the release terminated its obligations under the incentive letter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in interpreting the incentive letter, noting the release did not cover the incentive letter, and upholding the trial judge's refusal to allow the developer to raise the unpleaded release defence at trial.

The applicant husband sought temporary spousal support 13 years after the parties' final separation.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the spousal support claim.

The court granted the wife's summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the husband's entitlement to spousal support.

The decision highlighted the extreme delay in bringing the claim, the lack of financial interdependence post-separation, the wife's role as primary caregiver and sole financial support for the children, and the husband's failure to provide a compelling explanation for the delay or objective evidence of financial contributions or a "family discount" on a matrimonial home.

The plaintiff's former solicitors brought a motion to be removed from the record after the solicitor-client relationship broke down.

Before the motion was sworn, new counsel undertook to place herself on the record, rendering the motion moot.

Despite this, the former solicitors proceeded with the motion and sought $5,000 in costs.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding the motion was unnecessary, foreseeably moot, and vastly disproportionate to the issues and amounts in question.

The applicant father sought sole custody, an unequal division of net family properties, and $2 million in damages against the respondent mother for child abuse and neglect.

The mother's pleadings had been struck years prior due to the failures of her litigation guardian.

At the uncontested trial, evidence revealed the mother suffers from severe intellectual deficiencies and mental illness.

The court declined to issue a final judgment immediately, raising concerns that the mother's litigation guardian failed to appropriately protect her interests.

The court requested submissions from the father on whether the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee should be appointed to represent the mother before proceeding further.

The applicant moved to change a child and spousal support order following his termination for cause from his position as CEO of Redknee.

He claimed a catastrophic change in circumstances due to his job loss and the forced sale of his shares to meet margin calls.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the original order required his income to drop below $465,000 for two consecutive years before a review.

The court also found the applicant failed to prove a material change not contemplated by the original order, noting his lack of disclosure, failure to mitigate, and prioritization of his second family's expenses over his support obligations.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to amend a 2014 default judgment against the defendant Grocery Dayton to make the defendant Wakefern Food Corporation liable for the judgment.

This was the second time the plaintiffs brought this motion; the first was dismissed and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Wakefern raised a preliminary objection of res judicata.

The court found that the motion sought the same relief as the previous motion and that the new evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs could have been discovered with due diligence or did not constitute an admission.

The court dismissed the motion based on the doctrine of res judicata.

On a family law summary judgment motion arising from an international marital dispute, the court refused the responding party's adjournment request where delay threatened Ontario's jurisdiction over spousal support and reflected prolonged non-compliance with disclosure and support obligations.

Applying the family law summary judgment framework informed by Hryniak, the court granted final sole custody and primary residence to the mother, with liberal Ontario and electronic access to the father, but held that access in Trinidad and Tobago required a trial.

The court imputed income of $100,000 to the father under the Child Support Guidelines because of persistent non-disclosure, ordered retroactive child support of $22,000 and ongoing support of $880 per month, and made a final $1 lump sum spousal support order to preserve jurisdiction while reserving quantum and duration pending calculations.

Summary judgment on equalization was dismissed for want of sufficient evidence.

In this costs endorsement following a motion for access and parenting orders, the court found that success was divided between the parties and awarded no costs.

The father sought partial indemnity costs of $27,794.71, alleging bad faith and unreasonable behaviour by the mother.

The mother sought no costs.

The court determined that both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour leading up to the motion, and that the mother's conduct, while unreasonable, did not rise to the level of bad faith.

The access order granted represented mixed success for both parties, with the father obtaining increased access but not the aggressive restoration of status quo or parenting covenants he sought, while the mother was ordered to equally share therapeutic costs.

The respondent father sought $11,714.26 in full indemnity costs of a case conference and motion that settled before argument.

The terms of settlement were similar to the father's offer to settle.

The applicant mother opposed the request and sought no costs award.

The court found that success was divided, as the parties were virtually ad idem on the date the mother was required to respond to the father's offer.

The court determined that the father's response to the mother's counteroffer was disproportionate to the minor remaining issues in dispute.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The respondent mother sought full indemnity costs of $12,650.47 for a motion regarding child support and access.

The applicant father argued no costs should be ordered.

The court found the mother was largely successful on financial issues, particularly regarding the imputation of income for child support purposes.

The court fixed costs at $10,000.00 payable within 60 days, representing a fair and reasonable amount considering the mother's success, the father's unreasonable position on income, and the factors under Family Law Rule 24.

The decision includes an addendum addressing alleged errors in the original endorsement regarding access terms and disclosure obligations.

Maternal grandparents brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of their granddaughter, born in 2011.

The mother opposed the motion and sought custody herself.

The court held a mini-trial under expanded summary judgment powers, hearing evidence from the grandparents, the mother, and the mother's brother, as well as two detailed reports from an Office of the Children's Lawyer clinical investigator.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted sole custody to the grandparents, finding they provided greater stability and security.

The mother was granted expanded access including alternate weekend overnight visits, mid-week access, and extended summer and holiday access, subject to conditions including no marijuana use during access periods.