Monika Goyal

The mother and father separated when their child was two months old.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary care, alleging the father was abusive and that they could not communicate.

The father sought sole decision-making and shared parenting, arguing the mother alienated him and made false allegations.

The court found the mother's allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated and that she had manufactured conflict and unnecessarily involved the police.

Finding both parents capable but the mother unwilling to foster the father-child relationship, the court ordered joint decision-making responsibility and a shared parenting schedule that departed from the AFCC guidelines to protect the child's relationship with the father.

The Plaintiff, Matbridge Investments Ltd., brought a motion seeking an order for the Defendants to answer undertakings regarding the production of lawyers' files and for partial summary judgment of $37,500 based on a promissory note.

The Defendants, Christopher Culligan and The Quiet Coach Inc., opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for leave to amend their statement of defence to plead equitable set-off.

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's motion regarding the undertakings, finding no agreement for the Defendants to bear the costs.

The court granted the Defendants' cross-motion to amend their statement of defence, finding the delay was not inordinate and the proposed equitable set-off defence was not statute-barred.

The court also dismissed the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the promissory note, concluding that the issue could not be readily bifurcated and involved genuine issues requiring a trial.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 7, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The respondent, Ritika Sondhi, brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, requesting income imputation to the applicant, Amit Sondhi, for various periods.

Amit disputed income imputation, asserting his sole income was employment-based, and sought income imputation to Ritika for alleged underemployment.

The court imputed income to Amit, finding his declared income insufficient to cover expenses and noting inconsistencies in his financial disclosure.

The court awarded Ritika both ongoing and retroactive child and spousal support, declining to impute income to her, recognizing her role as primary caregiver and the impact of the pandemic on her employment efforts.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Pinto J. dated September 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The respondent husband brought a motion for the interim sale of the matrimonial home, citing financial hardship due to reduced income as a taxi driver during the pandemic.

The applicant wife, who had interim exclusive possession of the home and resided there with their three children, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the husband's financial hardship was not sufficiently compelling to justify a forced sale at the interim stage, especially given the vulnerability of the wife and children and the uncertainty surrounding the husband's financial evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a shared parenting plan, joint decision-making responsibility, and imputed income for the respondent mother.

The respondent mother opposed and sought imputed income for the father, along with spousal and child support.

The court adjourned the financial issues but determined the parenting issues.

Finding that the mother was the historical primary caregiver and noting communication concerns from the father, the court denied a shared parenting plan.

The father was granted parenting time on alternating weekends plus one overnight per week, and the parties were granted joint decision-making responsibility for major decisions.

The respondent father brought a motion to change an interim order, seeking to terminate child support for an adult child and to temporarily terminate ongoing spousal support and arrears due to a medical inability to work.

On consent, the court ordered the final termination of child support as the child was no longer a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act.

The court dismissed the motion to vary spousal support and arrears without prejudice, noting the parties agreed that the medical evidence regarding the father's inability to work needed to be supplemented.

The court also ordered the exchange of updated financial disclosure.

This decision addresses the costs for a three-day trial where the plaintiffs were largely successful.

The court considered the plaintiffs' Rule 49 offer to settle, which they argued triggered substantial indemnity costs, and the defendants' arguments against it, including the implied withdrawal of the offer by subsequent settlement discussions.

The court found that the plaintiffs' Rule 49 offer was not implicitly withdrawn by subsequent non-Rule 49 offers, distinguishing prior case law.

The court also assessed the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' claimed costs under Rule 57.01, reducing them due to excessive lawyer time, duplication of effort, and disallowing a specific disbursement for a legal opinion deemed unnecessary.

Ultimately, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs $147,966.49 in costs.

This endorsement resolves five outstanding issues between the parties following a prior judgment (2017 ONSC 5680).

The court determined that the quantum of the judgment should not be deferred despite ongoing related proceedings, that simple interest applies to the loan amounts, and accepted the defendants' position on pre-judgment interest for the deposit.

The court also affirmed that Tzimas J. remains the case management judge for outstanding cross-claims and lease issues, and ordered the Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) to be removed at the plaintiffs' expense.

The plaintiffs entered into a complex series of agreements to purchase a commercial property from the defendants.

The plaintiffs advanced approximately $2 million to the defendants prior to closing.

The transaction failed to close on the extended closing date of September 18, 2015.

The court found that neither party was ready, willing, and able to close on that date, as the plaintiffs lacked financing and the defendants' tender was deficient.

The court determined that $1,735,000 of the advanced funds was a loan bearing 12% interest, for which the individual defendants were jointly and severally liable, and the remaining $225,000 was a deposit.

The court ordered the return of all funds to the plaintiffs, lifted the certificate of pending litigation, and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for damages.