Michael Joseph Cupello

The respondent brought a motion for the partition and sale of a jointly owned camp property where the applicant had been residing since separation.

The applicant opposed the sale, indicating an intention to amend his pleadings to advance a trust claim based on funds from a prior personal injury settlement used to purchase the property.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that a sale could unfairly prejudice the applicant's equitable claims and leave him without housing before the property issues were fully determined.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the costs portion of a Small Claims Court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer due to his failure to provide meaningful financial disclosure despite repeated requests and a prior court order.

The court found that the respondent had ignored his disclosure obligations but declined to strike the Answer at this stage.

Instead, the court appointed itself as case management judge, imposed a strict timetable for disclosure and questioning, and awarded costs of $7,500 to the applicant.

The mortgagee brought a motion for an order requiring interim mortgage payments of $15,000 per month on a valid vendor take-back commercial mortgage of approximately $2.7 million arising from the purchase of a tourist lodge.

The respondents opposed, arguing the motion was an attempt to relitigate a previously dismissed partial summary judgment motion and that payments would cause financial hardship.

The court, noting the mortgage was valid, that no fraud was alleged, and that the respondents failed to provide current financial information to support their hardship claim, ordered interim without-prejudice payments of $12,000 per month commencing February 2026 until trial.

The court emphasized that contractual obligations in commercial matters are not to be lightly ignored and encouraged both parties to reassess the economic realities of the litigation.

The mortgagee brought a motion for interim mortgage payments on a valid commercial vendor take-back mortgage of approximately $2.7 million arising from the purchase of a tourist lodge.

The moving party sought $15,000 per month commencing August 2025 until trial.

The court ordered the responding parties to pay $12,000 per month commencing February 2026, finding that contractual obligations in commercial contracts are not to be lightly ignored, that the mortgagee was suffering significant economic consequences from non-payment, and that the responding parties failed to provide current financial information to support their claim of hardship.

A family law trial involving disputes over child support, spousal support, and equalization of family property following the breakdown of a marriage.

The parties cohabited for approximately two years and five months (March 2014 to August 2017) and were married on August 9, 2014.

The applicant mother sought spousal support and equalization; the respondent father disputed the amounts and certain valuations.

The court determined child support arrears, awarded limited-term spousal support on a compensatory basis, and ordered an equalization payment based on adjusted valuations of family assets.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a temporary order permitting relocation of the child from Thunder Bay to Kenora, Ontario.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court found that the respondent, as the primary care parent with sole decision-making authority, met the burden of proof under section 16.93(2) of the Divorce Act.

The court authorized the relocation, finding it was in the child's best interests based on the respondent's improved economic circumstances, the child's young age and adaptability, the manageable distance between the two locations, and the respondent's willingness to facilitate the applicant's parenting time.

The court suspended child support obligations pending further agreement or court order and awarded costs to the respondent.

This is a costs decision following motions heard on June 30, 2025 in a family law proceeding involving parenting time, child support, and related issues.

The applicant sought costs for multiple attendances before the court.

The judge awarded costs totalling $3,500.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the applicant, declining to award costs for certain earlier attendances but awarding costs for the April 17, 2025 child support motion and the June 30, 2025 consolidated motions hearing.

In a family law trial following the separation of a common law couple of over 22 years with three children, the court dismissed the applicant's claim for repayment of an alleged $14,000 loan made to the respondent in September 2018.

The applicant sought repayment plus prejudgment interest, while the respondent denied the funds were a loan and claimed he had provided construction supplies and services in excess of that amount.

After resolving all other outstanding issues including retroactive child and spousal support and section 7 expenses, the court found the applicant had not met her burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the transaction constituted an enforceable loan.

The court determined the funds were instead a transfer for consideration, representing compensation for the respondent's labour and materials provided for the applicant's business ventures.

During a family law trial, the applicant sought to introduce a handwritten document as evidence of a loan obligation.

The respondent objected on the basis of settlement privilege.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine admissibility.

The court found that the document constituted an offer to settle a family law dispute and was therefore inadmissible under Rule 18(8)(b) of the Family Law Rules, which provides that settlement offers shall not be mentioned to the judge until all issues in dispute except costs have been dealt with.

The court also found that the document did not constitute an admission of the alleged debt, as it merely stated an amount would be paid at a particular time without acknowledging liability.

A family law trial concerning parenting arrangements for Lincoln, a child born to the applicant and respondent in December 2019.

The applicant sought sole decision-making and primary residence, while the respondent sought joint decision-making and increased parenting time.

The court found that the respondent had been the primary caregiver for the first 3.5 years of Lincoln's life and that the applicant had engaged in a course of conduct not in the child's best interests following the respondent's incarceration, including limiting contact with the respondent's family, relocating further away, and enrolling the child in a distant school.

The court ordered joint decision-making, primary residence with the respondent, and a parenting schedule providing the applicant with three out of five weekends plus holiday access.

Child support was ordered based on the applicant's income with imputed income for the respondent.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother, alleging she failed to facilitate parenting time as required by a recent consent final parenting order.

The court found the mother in contempt for two of the three missed visits, rejecting her argument that her sole decision-making authority allowed her to cancel visits based on the child's expressed anxiety.

The court declined to order further remedies beyond a declaration of contempt and a partial costs award of $2,000, emphasizing the need to end the cycle of constant litigation.

The Applicant mother brought a motion for interim child support and disclosure, which the Respondent father sought to adjourn to be heard alongside an upcoming parenting time motion.

The parties agreed to proceed solely on the issue of temporary child support pending the final hearing.

The court rejected the Respondent's arguments that he had a shared parenting arrangement and that his recent higher income years were non-recurring outliers.

Consequently, the court ordered the Respondent to pay interim child support of $1,613.90 per month commencing May 1, 2025, and adjourned the remainder of the motion to June 30, 2025.

The court dismissed a motion for partial summary judgment brought by Caroline Manon Labonte regarding a commercial mortgage dispute involving Browns Clearwater West Lodge Inc. and related parties.

The court found that the motion did not meet the criteria for partial summary judgment, as it would not make the litigation cheaper, faster, or avoid inconsistent findings.

The court also enjoined Labonte from taking further steps to enforce a notice of sale and demand for possession until further court order, and addressed costs and case management issues.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment and partial summary judgment brought by Labonte regarding a commercial mortgage dispute.

The court found that the motion did not advance the litigation and that the issues, including the right to set off and the meaning of the contract, required a trial.

The court also enjoined Labonte from taking further steps to enforce the notice of sale and demand for possession until further court order, and addressed costs and case management going forward.

The applicants sought orders to remove the respondent as executor and estate trustee of the Estate of Milton Westover, revoke her certificate of appointment, and appoint a replacement trustee.

The applicants alleged the trustee delayed administration, had conflicts of interest, wasted assets, failed to account, disrespected court orders, and lacked capacity.

The respondent argued the applicants lacked standing.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants, as judgment creditors or potential judgment creditors, did not possess the requisite "financial interest" in the estate to establish standing under Rule 75.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, consistent with a narrow interpretation of this term in estate litigation.

The applicant mother was completely successful on an urgent motion for the return of the children after the respondent father wrongfully retained them following a summer visit.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs of $2,565.

The father argued for no costs or a reduced amount, claiming the mother was not completely successful because police enforcement was not ordered.

The court rejected the father's argument, noting police enforcement was only omitted because the father undertook to comply.

Finding the father's failure to return the children to be inappropriate behaviour, the court awarded the mother substantial indemnity costs of $2,565 plus HST.

This urgent motion addressed a father's unilateral relocation of two of his three children, aged 11 and 13, from Marathon to Levack (over 700 km away) without the mother's consent or a court order, in violation of the amended Divorce Act.

The mother immediately sought an order for the children's return.

The court found the father's actions unlawful, ordered the immediate return of the children to the mother's care in Marathon, and temporarily established the mother's residence as the children's primary residence.

The court also granted the mother costs of the motion.

The moving parties (the "Browns") sought an injunction to prevent the responding parties (Labonte) from enforcing a notice of sale under mortgage.

The Browns had withheld mortgage payments, relying on a set-off clause in the purchase agreement.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions.

While a serious issue to be tried existed regarding the interpretation of the set-off clause, the Browns did not fully satisfy the irreparable harm or balance of convenience tests as requested.

The court found that the Browns would suffer irreparable harm if the property was sold, but the balance of convenience did not favour granting an outright injunction due to substantial mortgage arrears and the lack of quantification of the set-off claim.

The motion was adjourned, and an interim order was made prohibiting Labonte from enforcing the notice of sale on terms that required the Browns to make substantial payments towards the mortgage arrears.

The Applicant, Ms. Baxter, sought an order for costs against the Respondent, Mr. Pykari, related to Mr. Pykari’s dismissed motion to vary child and spousal support on a temporary basis.

The court awarded Ms. Baxter costs in the amount of $8,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The decision applied family cost rules, emphasizing the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, and considered factors such as the parties' behaviour, the complexity of issues, and proportionality.

The court found that Mr. Pykari's original motion was best left for trial due to insufficient evidence and dated income information, and noted that both parties shared responsibility for delays and lack of disclosure, which influenced the final costs award.