Michael Gordon John Miculinic

The appellant appealed a family arbitration award dealing with property, spousal support, and child support.

The Superior Court of Justice determined that the standard of review for family arbitration appeals is the Housen standard.

The court upheld the arbitrator's use of hindsight evidence for property valuation and his imputation of income to the respondent.

However, the court found the arbitrator erred by including a statute-barred debt in the appellant's net family property, by failing to provide adequate reasons for awarding lump sum rather than indefinite periodic spousal support, and by exceeding his jurisdiction in ordering the parties to refile tax returns.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the court substituting an order for indefinite periodic spousal support and adjusting the equalization payment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial and avoid administrative dismissal under Rule 48.14.

The underlying action involved a family dispute over a beneficial interest in a property.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, citing personal difficulties and issues retaining counsel.

Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate any non-compensable prejudice resulting from the delay.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed, but costs were awarded to the defendant as the plaintiff was seeking an indulgence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking consolidation of two related actions—one commenced in Brampton and another in Ottawa—and requested that the consolidated proceeding be tried in Brampton.

The defendant agreed that the claims arose from the same occurrence but proposed that the actions be tried together rather than formally consolidated and argued that Ottawa was the more appropriate venue.

Applying the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that both locations had connections to the dispute but concluded that Ottawa was the preferred venue.

Considerations included judicial resource constraints in Brampton and the availability of mandatory mediation in Ottawa.

The court ordered that the proceedings be transferred to Ottawa and that the two actions be tried together or consecutively, with costs of the motion reserved to the trial judge.

The defendant moved to vacate Certificates of Pending Litigation obtained by the plaintiff on an ex parte basis over two properties.

The court held that a party seeking ex parte relief must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts.

The plaintiff failed to disclose a prior divorce settlement in which he had disclaimed any trust interest in the properties and misrepresented the contents of a lawyer’s letter regarding potential sale of the land.

These omissions and misrepresentations were material and could have influenced the original ex parte decision.

The court therefore set aside the order permitting the certificates, but required that 50% of the gross sale proceeds of the properties be paid into court as security pending resolution of the ownership dispute.