M. D. Faieta

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

The appellant appealed a Master's order granting the respondent leave to amend his Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to add the appellant as a defendant by counterclaim.

The appellant argued the Master erred in granting leave after the action was set down for trial, in her application of the discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002, and in finding the respondent had standing to bring an oppression claim.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Master's decision to allow the amendments and add the appellant as a party.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $41,608.83 for unpaid invoices and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed, the plaintiff sought costs of $87,103.50.

The defendant argued the amount was disproportionate for a simplified procedure action.

The court considered the plaintiff's successful offers to settle, which presumptively entitled it to substantial indemnity costs, but balanced this against the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04(1.1) and the objectives of the simplified procedure.

The court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.