Mohan D. Sharma

This judgment concludes a four-day trial addressing child support and spousal support.

The court determined the applicant's income for support purposes, calculated child support under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and assessed the respondent's entitlement to spousal support.

The court declined to impute additional income to the applicant from reimbursed business expenses, finding them legitimate.

For child support, the court ordered the applicant to pay a set-off amount plus an additional $100 per month to ensure similar standards of living for the children in both households, considering the income disparity and the respondent's higher housing costs.

The respondent's claim for spousal support, both compensatory and non-compensatory, was dismissed, as the court found no economic sacrifices made by him during the marriage and that his mental health did not impede his ability to work.

Following an urgent motion where the applicant father successfully obtained an order for the return of the parties' child from India, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the respondent mother's unilateral retention of the child in India was calculated and unreasonable, warranting sanction.

The applicant was awarded costs of $17,000 on a near full indemnity basis.

Following a trial where the plaintiff achieved partial success in a partnership dispute, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendants had made a Rule 49 offer to settle 19 years into the litigation.

The court found that the defendants beat their offer when comparing the trial judgment plus the plaintiff's costs up to the date of the offer.

Applying Rule 49.10(2), the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the offer date, and the defendants were entitled to partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court declined to reduce either party's entitlement based on conduct or divided success, resulting in a net costs award of $179,174.88 payable to the plaintiff.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that Ontario has jurisdiction over the parties' child and for the child's return from India.

The respondent mother had travelled to India with the child for a scheduled visit but refused to return to Ontario.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario under s. 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act and declined to yield jurisdiction to the courts in India.

The court ordered the respondent to return the child to Ontario within 30 days and made interim parenting and asset preservation orders.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that Ontario has jurisdiction over the parties' child and for the child's return from India.

The respondent mother, who travelled to India with the child for a vacation and did not return, sought an adjournment.

The court granted the adjournment but made an interim, without prejudice finding that the child is habitually resident in Ontario and that the court has jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, citing compelling documentary evidence of the family's life in Ontario.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order to permit her to relocate with the parties' two children from Toronto to Niagara-on-the-Lake, and to grant her sole decision-making and primary residence.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought primary residence if the mother moved.

The court found the proposed move constituted a 'relocation' under the amended Divorce Act and would significantly impact the children's relationship with the father.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court denied the relocation, finding the move was primarily for the benefit of the mother's new husband and would negatively impact the children's strong relationship with their father and grandparents.

However, finding a material change in circumstances due to the parties' inability to co-parent, the court terminated joint decision-making, allocating medical/dental/mental health decisions to the mother and education/extra-curricular decisions to the father, and eliminated mid-week overnight swaps.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking further financial disclosure from the applicant father for child support purposes and interim disbursements for legal fees and an expert.

The court found the applicant had provided sufficient disclosure, dismissing the respondent's motion for further disclosure, but ordered applicant's counsel to obtain a comprehensive compensation letter from Manulife to address remaining concerns.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for interim disbursements, citing the unreasonableness of her litigation conduct and her financial capacity.

The applicant was awarded costs for a prior contested adjournment.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a summary trial where judgment was granted to the plaintiff against both corporate and personal defendants for $50,000 each, plus interest, under a debenture and personal guarantee respectively.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, relying on a contractual provision in the guarantee and a prior offer to settle.

The defendants argued the costs were excessive.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff's costs reasonable and warranted a higher scale due to the defendant's failure to admit a key fact (personal guarantee) that prolonged the trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff $55,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs were successful in obtaining an interlocutory injunction enforcing restrictive covenants related to the purchase of a dental practice.

In this costs decision, the plaintiffs sought partial or substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent argued costs should be deferred to the arbitrator who would hear the underlying damages claim.

The court held it was appropriate to determine costs now, as the injunction motion effectively determined the respondent's ability to practice dentistry and the court had already reviewed the voluminous materials.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs and fixed costs at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs in a defamation action brought a motion for a sealing order and publication ban.

The action arose from social media posts made by the defendant, a family member, following a dispute over funeral attendance.

Applying the test from Sherman Estate, the court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that court openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest or their biographical core.

The court declined to award costs to the successful defendant because her counsel had previously sent a letter threatening to use the open court principle to embarrass the plaintiffs if they did not abandon their claim.

Following a judgment granting the applicant tenant a declaration of unlawful lease termination and restoring possession, the tenant sought costs of up to $24,637.91 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the tenant's limited success on its arguments, and the reasonable settlement offers made by the landlord.

Finding that Rule 49 cost consequences were not appropriate, the court fixed costs payable to the tenant at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a successful appeal setting aside a Master's order that amended pleadings and added a defendant, the successful appellants sought costs.

The court found the amounts sought excessive because the appellants were unsuccessful on several grounds of appeal and the costs of the underlying motion were fixed at $5,000.

The court awarded the TRG defendants $13,000 and the added defendant $12,000, inclusive of the underlying motion costs.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision dismissing their motion to strike the respondents' statement of claim for lack of particularity or dismiss it for delay, and granting the respondents' motions to extend time for service and compel answers to undertakings.

The underlying action involved allegations of fraudulent conveyances following a $2.3 million judgment against the corporate defendant.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's application of the test for delay or the principles for striking pleadings.

The court declined to consider the appeal regarding the undertakings motion because the corporate defendant was not an appellant and was unrepresented.

The plaintiffs brought an interlocutory motion for injunctive relief against the defendants regarding the solicitation of dental clients and a non-compete clause.

Following the hearing of the motion, the court issued an interim order enjoining the defendants from soliciting clients of the dental centre and prohibiting one of the defendants from practicing dentistry within a 5-kilometre radius until the final decision on the interlocutory motion is released.

The defendants appealed a Master's order that granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to add new defendants and new claims regarding supplier contributions to an advertising fund, and ordered related documentary production.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal in part.

The court found that adding a new corporate defendant on the eve of trial constituted an abuse of process given the extensive delays in the nine-year-old franchise dispute.

The court also held that the Master erred in allowing the amendments regarding supplier contributions, as they constituted a new cause of action that was statute-barred and not legally tenable under the clear terms of the franchise agreements.

The Master's orders adding the new party and allowing the supplier contribution amendments were set aside.

The defendants appealed an Associate Judge's order that required the net proceeds from the sale of two properties to be held in trust or paid into court upon the discharge of certificates of pending litigation (CPLs).

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure on the initial ex parte motion for the CPLs and that the Associate Judge failed to properly apply the test to vacate a CPL.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in law in the Associate Judge's assessment of material disclosure, balancing of equities, or exercise of discretion to require security.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action, which was denied.

In this costs decision, the plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants argued no costs should be awarded based on the presumption in s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found it appropriate to depart from the presumption and award costs to the plaintiff, noting the underlying dispute was purely private and the defendants' voluminous motion record was disproportionate, suggesting a misuse of the anti-SLAPP rule.

The defendants were ordered to pay $80,000 in costs.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendants argued no costs should be awarded and objected to duplicative billing.

The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to substantial indemnity costs from the date of their offer but reduced the quantum to account for unnecessary duplication, fixing costs at $23,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $116,706.47 following a successful motion and the dismissal of the defendant's cross-motion.

The plaintiff argued the defendant engaged in suspicious and abusive conduct, including commencing a separate action in Korea and insisting on unnecessary foreign law experts.

The court agreed that the defendant's aggressive and strategic conduct unnecessarily complicated the dispute.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $80,000 against the primary defendant and $3,000 against the secondary defendant.

Following a successful application for insurance indemnity, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of $291,052.22.

The court held that the applicants were entitled to full indemnity costs because the insurer wrongfully denied coverage and provided vague reasons until shortly before the hearing.

However, the court found the requested quantum excessive due to over-lawyering and duplication of previous application records.

Costs were fixed at $140,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.