Pacifique Siryuyumusi

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of $400,000 advanced to the defendant, and to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for $813,000.

The court granted summary judgment for the $400,000 as the defendant admitted receiving the funds and owing the debt.

However, the court refused to dismiss the counterclaim, finding that the lack of written agreements and contradictory evidence regarding the defendant's remuneration and the share purchase created a genuine issue for trial.

The court stayed the enforcement of the $400,000 judgment pending the outcome of the counterclaim trial, as the defendant may be entitled to an equitable set-off.

This was a costs endorsement following a family law proceeding involving divorce, support, property division, and recognition of a prior foreign divorce.

The successful party in the underlying proceeding sought full indemnity costs of $125,090 under r. 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that the presumption in favour of costs applied, but reduced the award drastically after considering the opposing party’s health, financial hardship, limited language skills, unemployment, and dependency on social assistance.

Costs were fixed at $1,000 inclusive of HST, payable within eight months.

The applicant sought divorce, support, property relief, and exclusive possession of an Ottawa condominium, while the respondent argued the parties had already been validly divorced in Lebanon.

After hearing expert evidence on Lebanese Sunni marriage and divorce law, the court held the 2009 Lebanese divorce was valid and recognizable under s. 22 of the Divorce Act.

The court rejected the applicant’s allegation that reconciliation during the waiting period nullified the divorce, finding her evidence inconsistent and unreliable.

Because the foreign divorce was recognized, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant corollary relief under the Divorce Act or spousal support under the Family Law Act to a former spouse.

The application was dismissed, interim support was terminated effective January 31, 2015, and the respondent’s cross-motion regarding possession of the condominium was also dismissed.