Paul Anthony Mazzeo

The applicant wife brought a motion for retroactive and ongoing interim spousal support.

The respondent husband opposed the quantum and sought to impute income to the wife.

The court declined to impute income to the wife at the interim stage, noting that such determinations are better left for trial.

The court ordered the husband to pay a lump sum of $10,728 for retroactive support for 2019 and ongoing monthly support of $3,575 based on his 2020 income.

The appellant husband appealed an order for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The property was sold prior to the hearing of the appeal.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was moot and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The court awarded the respondent wife full indemnity costs of $20,000, finding the husband's conduct in pursuing the appeal and opposing the sale amounted to bad faith litigation.

A case management endorsement providing procedural directions for an upcoming appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court scheduled the appeal to be heard via Zoom videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, factums, and compendiums.

The appellant sought an interim stay of an order directing the sale of a matrimonial home pending his appeal.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found no irreparable harm to the appellant, as he could purchase another home and had been out of the property for nearly three years.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to the appellant's delay in seeking the stay and the risk of losing a pending $3.91 million offer in a volatile real estate market.

The request for an interim stay was denied.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a family law matter concerning child support and access.

The mother was the successful party, obtaining an order for child support based on imputed income significantly higher than the father's position.

The mother sought costs of $11,208 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The father opposed the costs award, arguing inability to pay based on his asserted income.

The court awarded the mother the full amount of costs requested, finding the father's conduct unreasonable throughout the proceedings, including failure to provide complete disclosure, failure to make a settlement offer, and last-minute concessions on access and commencement date that forced unnecessary trial preparation.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy after they were found ineligible for geared-to-income rent due to alleged misrepresentation of assets.

At the Board hearing, the tenants attempted to raise the issue of harassment by the landlord's property manager, but the Board refused to consider it because it was not raised two weeks prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law because section 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the Board to permit a tenant to raise any issue that could be the subject of a tenant application.

The Board's order was set aside.