Narissa Somji

The plaintiff, Joann Bell, sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a residential property previously owned by the defendant, Carolyn Gerbac, and subsequently transferred in part to the other defendants.

Bell had a judgment for professional negligence against Gerbac and alleged the property transfer was fraudulent, aimed at hindering her as a creditor.

The court found several "badges of fraud" in the conveyance, establishing a triable issue regarding its fraudulent nature.

Weighing the equities, the court determined that granting the CPL was appropriate, as the property appeared to be the only asset for judgment recovery and the CPL would not unduly prejudice the defendants.

The motion for a CPL was granted, and the defendants were ordered to pay fixed costs to the plaintiff due to the unreasonable conduct of not consenting to the CPL.

The applicant father failed to attend a scheduled virtual trial, leading the court to proceed in his absence.

The court dismissed the father's claim and granted the mother's requests for sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence of the child, discretionary virtual and in-person parenting time for the father (with conditions due to past abuse and flight risk), permission to obtain/renew the child's passport and travel internationally without the father's consent, a divorce, the right to add her last name to the child's, and financial disclosure from the father.

Costs were awarded to the mother.

The respondent, Ms. Soltani, sought full-recovery costs after successfully defending a motion related to the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, Mr. Rastkar, opposed, arguing divided success and Ms. Soltani's conduct.

The court found Ms. Soltani substantially successful on the primary issues of the motion and determined that Mr. Rastkar's conduct was unreasonable, warranting an elevated costs award.

While Ms. Soltani requested $7,653.49, the court reduced the award to a fixed amount of $5,000 due to concerns about potential duplication of work in her billings, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

The respondent father brought a motion to alter the parenting arrangement and ensure the child's attendance at Robert Bateman Elementary School, following the applicant mother's unilateral withdrawal of the child from school and commencement of homeschooling, contrary to an existing consent order.

The court found it was in the child's best interest to return to Robert Bateman School, citing the mother's lack of satisfactory explanation for withdrawal, history of neglecting the child's education, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court reversed the interim parenting arrangement, granting the father primary care during the week and sole decision-making authority on education, with the mother having weekend parenting time.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against two defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress and publicity placing the plaintiff in a false light.

The defendants, including the plaintiff's father who murdered her mother, created and disseminated a website containing false and defamatory information blaming the plaintiff for her mother's death.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, held the defendants liable for both torts, and granted a permanent injunction to prevent further dissemination of defamatory content.

Damages were reserved for a later hearing.

This decision addresses the valuation of the Respondent's company, Ottawa Garage Door Systems Inc., for the purpose of equalization of net family property.

The Applicant sought a valuation of approximately $3.3 million, while the Respondent claimed approximately $2.2 million.

The court preferred the Applicant's expert's valuation, finding it more reliable due to its comprehensive consideration of the relevant financial period, appropriate risk assessment, objective treatment of remuneration, and consistent application of valuation principles.

The court fixed the company's value at $3,290,000.

The respondent mother sought full indemnity costs following the applicant father's motion for parenting time and travel authorization, where the holiday parenting schedule issue was resolved at a settlement conference.

The father argued against costs, citing the settlement, or sought costs against the mother for unreasonable conduct.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable, noting his repeated attempts to vary a recent interim order and his uncompromised settlement offer.

The mother's offer was found to be more favourable and compliant with Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules.

Despite the matter settling at a conference, the court awarded fixed costs to the mother, finding that the presumption against costs in such circumstances was overcome by the father's unreasonable conduct and the mother's reasonable offer.

The Applicant mother sought costs following a settled disclosure motion, while the Respondent father sought partial indemnity costs, claiming the motion was unnecessary.

The court found the father's ongoing lack of compliance and delays with financial disclosure to be unreasonable conduct.

The mother was deemed the successful party on the substantial issue of disclosure, despite the motion settling.

The court awarded the mother elevated fixed costs of $2,800, finding the father's conduct warranted such an award but did not reach the threshold of bad faith for full indemnity.

The father's request for costs was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought extended society care for four children, aiming for adoption by their maternal grandmother, citing ongoing risks from parental conflict, inattentiveness, and lack of support.

The parents sought the children's return under a supervision order, proposing to live with the father's sister for support.

The court found that while some protection concerns minimally existed, the parents had made significant progress, particularly since the father's sobriety.

The court dismissed the Society's request for extended society care and ordered the children to be placed in the parents' care and custody, subject to a 12-month supervision order, finding this to be in the children's best interests and the least restrictive measure.

This motion addressed a dispute over the sale of the parties’ matrimonial home.

The Applicant sought to have his purchase offer deemed valid or to have the home listed without the Respondent's involvement, alleging the Respondent obstructed the sale and breached court orders/agreements by refusing his offer and delaying the sale.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the Applicant caused delays and she was entitled to seek fair market value.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding the Respondent did not obstruct the sale or breach orders, and provided a path forward for the sale, including setting a new listing price and allowing both parties to bid.

Following an uncontested trial, the court determined retroactive and ongoing child support for parties with a shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent mother failed to provide timely financial disclosure and admitted to being untruthful about her employment.

The court imputed the mother's income at $35,000 based on full-time minimum wage work.

Retroactive child support was adjusted for 2018-2021, resulting in an overpayment credit for the applicant father.

Ongoing support for 2022 onwards was set off to zero due to the parties' comparable incomes.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate and individual defendants for default on three small business loans totaling approximately $559,293.

The defendants initially opposed the motion, arguing the guarantees were signed under stress without independent legal advice, but conceded these arguments at the hearing.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting that corporate officers are not required to obtain independent legal advice to be bound by guarantees.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering payment of the outstanding loans, interest, and delivery of possession of the secured properties, along with substantial indemnity costs.

The Applicant mother sought full indemnity costs of $5,556.66 following her successful summary judgment motion for the return of her children to her primary care.

The Respondent grandmother did not file a response to the costs submission.

The court found the grandmother's failure to attend a settlement conference and compelling the mother to file for summary judgment constituted unreasonable conduct, warranting an elevated costs award.

However, the court determined this conduct did not meet the high threshold for bad faith to justify full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the mother $4,500 in fixed costs.

The respondent father sought full indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an order for the return of the parties' child, whom the applicant mother had unilaterally relocated.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, though not in bad faith, warranting an elevated costs award.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' conduct, the non-complexity of the motion, and the father's counsel's reasonable billings, the court awarded the father $4,500 in fixed costs, payable in three instalments over one year.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and ongoing s. 7 childcare expenses from the respondent father.

The father did not dispute the expenses but argued undue hardship due to his financial situation and new family.

The court found that the father's debt should not be borne by the mother or child, and despite the mother's willingness to share equally, ordered the expenses to be apportioned according to the parties' respective incomes, as per the Child Support Guidelines.

The motion was granted in favour of the mother, with specific payment orders for arrears and ongoing expenses.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on two counts of mischief arising from the Ottawa Freedom Convoy protests.

The trial judge had excluded the respondent's statements to police as involuntary and obtained in violation of his Charter rights, and found insufficient evidence to prove he was a party to the mischief.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in her voluntariness analysis by requiring verbatim notes, misapplied the law on psychological detention, and failed to consider the evidence as a whole regarding the respondent's participation in the protest blockade.

A new trial was ordered.

The respondent father brought a motion for the return of the parties' nine-year-old child to Ottawa after the applicant mother unilaterally relocated to Tillsonburg.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the permanent relocation.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child starting school, the father's full-time employment, and the mother's unilateral move.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court determined that the relocation was not in the child's best interests, noting the mother's failure to provide proper notice and her thwarting of the father's parenting time.

The court ordered the child's return to Ottawa and implemented a temporary week-on/week-off shared parenting schedule.

The applicant, Catherine Philbin, sought a finding that her sister, Marie Orford, breached her fiduciary duty as co-attorney for property of their late mother by misappropriating funds for personal use.

The court found Marie Orford breached her fiduciary duty by treating the mother's assets as her own, failing to keep proper accounts, residing rent-free in the mother's condominium while using estate funds for its costs, and mismanaging investments.

The court ordered Marie Orford to pay restitution and damages, removed her as co-trustee, and addressed claims against other family members who received funds.

The mother brought a motion to change seeking ongoing child support for the parties' two teenage children.

The father argued he was unable to work because he was caring for his 27-year-old adult son from another relationship who was in crisis.

The court found the father was intentionally unemployed, as he failed to demonstrate that his adult son required 24-hour care that prevented him from working at least part-time.

The court imputed a part-time income of $15,000 to the father and ordered him to pay $250 per month in ongoing support and arrears.

The court also dismissed the father's claim that the Family Responsibility Office failed to properly account for wage garnishments and tax refunds.

The plaintiff brought an action in nuisance, negligence, and strict liability against his neighbour after water from the neighbour's sump pump and failing septic system flooded his property.

The continuous flooding undermined the foundation of the plaintiff's home, causing it to structurally collapse and rendering it unsafe to inhabit.

The court found the defendant liable under the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher, as well as in negligence and nuisance, for failing to properly manage his water discharge and maintain his property.

The plaintiff was awarded $505,354.53 in damages to cover the replacement cost of his home and out-of-pocket expenses, plus $100,000 in costs.