Nadia Warsi

The applicant brought a motion seeking to remove a fraudulent charge on a jointly owned rental property, obtain a no-dealings order, and terminate child support payments.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with court orders regarding the property's sale and had registered a $650,000 charge in favour of her mother without evidence of a legitimate loan, seemingly to frustrate the sale.

The court found the charge to be a fraudulent conveyance, declared it null and void, and ordered its removal.

It also granted a no-dealings order for both the rental property and the matrimonial home and terminated child support retroactively, as the children had primarily resided with the applicant since September 2022, constituting a substantial change in circumstances.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 4, 2022 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party uploaded their costs materials to CaseLines by the directed deadline, the court made no order as to costs.

The Applicant father's motion for contempt was adjourned.

At the outset of the contempt motion, the Respondent mother brought motions for recusal and to vacate eleven prior orders.

The court heard the recusal motion, with reasons to follow separately.

The motion to vacate was granted leave in part, specifically to vacate certain orders but not to strike the Applicant's Application, and was adjourned for the Respondent to prepare a Factum.

The Applicant's contempt motion was also adjourned.

The applicant father brought an urgent ex parte motion for a restraining order against the respondent mother after she forcibly removed the children from their school in violation of a parenting order.

The court found a legitimate basis for the father's fear for the children's safety and granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the mother from attending within 150 meters of the school.

The remainder of the motion, including a restraining order in respect of the father, was adjourned as urgency was not established.

The respondent mother brought a motion for leave to re-litigate the children's school enrollment, despite a previous order barring her from bringing further motions until she complied with existing orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding she remained in breach of numerous orders and was attempting to re-litigate a decided issue.

To ensure compliance with the prior order regarding school enrollment, the court granted the applicant father temporary sole decision-making responsibility for education and ordered costs against the respondent.

The applicant sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property, alleging the respondent was the true owner despite attempts to conceal ownership, and that her $100,000 investment from refinancing the matrimonial home gave her an interest.

The respondent argued the deposit was for a third-party buyer, Jeff Liu, for whom he acted as a realtor, and that the applicant had no direct interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of fraudulent purchase by the respondent, no demonstrated interest by the applicant beyond a deposit, sufficient other assets for equalization, and that damages would be an adequate remedy.