Naila Waheed

The Applicant sought primary residence of the children and remedies for the Respondent's breaches of previous orders.

The Respondent cross-moved for shared parenting.

The court admitted surreptitiously recorded conversations between the Respondent and the child, finding them highly probative of the child's best interests despite policy against such recordings.

The court found evidence of family violence and the Respondent's lack of respect for court orders and inability to co-parent.

Primary residence was granted to the Applicant, with a specific parenting schedule for the Respondent.

The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Applicant for vehicle rental costs, lock replacement, and to return the family vehicle.

The Respondent was also ordered to reimburse the joint line of credit for funds improperly withdrawn and interest charges.

The court also ordered mutual questioning and OCL involvement.

The appellant tenant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay the respondent landlord for lost rent after he unilaterally terminated a residential lease.

The tenant claimed the unit was not fit for habitation due to the presence of mold spores detected by an ERMI test, which posed a risk to his daughter who suffered from mold toxicity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the trial judge's contextual application of the 'fit for habitation' test under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court upheld the finding that the tenant breached the lease by terminating it without giving the landlord an opportunity to investigate or remediate the alleged mold issue.

The applicant sought a judicial recount of votes cast in the Electoral District of Brampton Centre in the June 7, 2018 Ontario provincial election.

The applicant, who received 12,803 votes, lost to Sara Singh of the Ontario New Democratic Party, who received 12,892 votes—a margin of 89 votes.

The applicant raised five grounds for a recount: non-citizens voting, discrepancies between tabulation forms, irregularities in "Bingo Sheets" unreliable witness testimony regarding missing votes, and disparities in ballot rejection rates between manual and electronic counting methods.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case under section 71(1) of the Election Act.

The court held that while the threshold for establishing grounds for a recount is modest, the applicant must still present credible evidence that could affect the election outcome.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment in a matrimonial property dispute.

The trial judge found that a declaration of trust and a $300,000 second mortgage were sham documents designed to defeat the respondent wife's interest in the matrimonial condominium.

The trial judge awarded the respondent an equalization payment of $100,500 and rejected an unequal division of property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, finding no basis to interfere with the credibility assessments or the detailed reasons for finding the documents to be shams.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.