Paul Jakubiak

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion on a reference for sole signing authority to complete the court-ordered sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, after the applicant failed to sign necessary closing documents and was unresponsive to the real estate agent and transaction lawyer.

The court granted sole signing authority to the moving party, directed distribution of net sale proceeds in accordance with a prior judicial order allocating 80% to the respondent and 20% to the applicant (less the applicant's share of mortgage payments and insurance premiums paid by the respondent since separation), and awarded costs of $5,610.45 on a substantial indemnity basis against the applicant for unreasonable conduct.

The applicant sought directions for the administration of her late father's estate, specifically addressing concerns about the estate trustee's conduct and the sale of the deceased's residential property where a respondent resided.

The court provided directions for estate administration, ordered the estate trustee to produce documents and accounts, and set conditions for the sale of the property, including a deadline for the resident respondent to secure financing or vacate.

The court also addressed the applicant's access to the property and emphasized the need for respectful communication among parties.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought disclosure and costs for the respondent's failure to attend questioning, while the respondent sought to reduce or terminate an existing interim spousal support order.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $650 in costs for failing to attend questioning without notice.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to vary interim spousal support, finding no substantial change in circumstances to justify a variation prior to trial.

The defendant homeowners brought a motion to vacate a construction lien registered by the plaintiff contractor, arguing the lien had expired before perfection because the contract was abandoned earlier than claimed.

The homeowners also sought an order for security for costs.

The court found the contractor did not abandon the project until the homeowners refused access, meaning the lien was preserved and perfected in time.

The court also dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding the corporate plaintiff was impecunious and its claim was not obviously devoid of merit.

The applicant father commenced a family law application in Ottawa regarding custody and access of the parties' infant child.

The respondent mother, who resided primarily in the Toronto area with the child, brought a motion to transfer the venue to Newmarket or Toronto.

The court determined that the child's 'real home' and ordinary residence was with the respondent in Bradford, Ontario.

Consequently, the court ordered the application transferred to Newmarket, the closest courthouse to the child's ordinary residence.

The applicant brought a motion seeking occupation rent, property appraisals, and financial disclosure from the respondent.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking security for costs and disclosure of the applicant's medical records.

The court dismissed the claim for occupation rent as premature, ordered the respondent to provide a realtor's opinion and car dealer estimate instead of formal appraisals, and ordered full disclosure of the respondent's bank records.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for security for costs to preserve access to justice, but ordered the applicant to produce medical records to substantiate her claim that she cannot work.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations retroactive to his retirement date, and to remove the respondent from his life insurance policies.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's retirement and reduced income, but noted the respondent's continuing financial need.

The court ordered a reduction in ongoing spousal support but declined to make it retroactive.

The court also permitted the applicant to remove the respondent from his life insurance policies, provided he confirms she is the irrevocable beneficiary of his survivor pension.

The mother brought a motion to impute income to the father under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, arguing his corporate expenses for two trucking and mobile wash businesses should be reduced by 50% and added to his income.

The father brought a cross-motion to reduce his child support based on his reported income.

The court reviewed the corporate expenses, disallowing or reducing certain claims for meals, home office, and professional fees, and imputed the father's income at $70,681 for 2014 and $71,921 for 2015.

The court ordered the parties to share section 7 post-secondary expenses proportionately based on their incomes.

The applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and temporary spousal support.

The respondent challenged the court's jurisdiction and sought to stay the proceedings pending a divorce/annulment application in Lebanon.

The court found that Ontario was the last common habitual residence, establishing jurisdiction, and declined to stay the proceedings on *forum non conveniens* grounds.

However, the applicant's motion for exclusive possession was dismissed as the property was not deemed a matrimonial home, and her motion for temporary spousal support was dismissed due to her capacity for self-sufficiency and the short duration of the marriage.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with her underlying application claims.

The court determined the appropriate costs following an earlier endorsement where the father effectively abandoned a motion to vary in family proceedings.

The mother sought recovery of substantial legal expenses incurred responding to the abandoned motion and in bringing her own motion.

Applying the general principles of costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court emphasized that costs typically follow the event and may serve to indemnify successful litigants and discourage inappropriate litigation conduct.

The court found the mother was entitled to costs arising from the abandoned motion and was also more successful on her own motion.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 for the abandoned motion and $3,000 for the mother’s motion.

The applicant brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to job loss and reliance on Employment Insurance.

The respondent opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to transfer ownership of a vehicle.

The court found a material change in circumstances and reduced the applicant's spousal support obligation from $1,500 to $640 per month.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment regarding the vehicle was dismissed as there were triable issues regarding contributions to the vehicle.

The respondent father brought an emergency motion seeking immediate joint custody and a week-about parenting schedule for an 11‑month‑old child.

The applicant mother opposed and sought sole custody with limited evening and weekend access for the father, along with child support.

The court held that the existing status quo, in which the child had primarily resided with the mother since birth, should not be materially altered on an interim basis given unresolved concerns about the father’s substance use and the condition of his residence.

The court ordered the child’s primary residence to remain with the mother while providing structured access for the father and requiring both parties to disclose information regarding substance use and home conditions.

Interim child support was also ordered.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment in a construction lien proceeding under the Construction Lien Act.

The court applied both the Rules of Civil Procedure and the statutory requirements under the Act, which require promptness, a reasonable explanation for the failure to defend, and evidence supporting a genuine defence.

The defendants demonstrated a viable defence alleging incomplete and deficient work and potential set-off exceeding the lien claim.

Although the defendants’ conduct regarding service and delay was criticized, the court found there was always an intention to defend and little prejudice to the plaintiff because security had been paid into court.

The default judgment and noting of default were set aside and the defendants were granted time to deliver a defence.

Supplementary reasons in a family law matter addressing transportation obligations for access exchanges and clarification of an interim access schedule pending the potential implementation of a shared parenting regime.

The court agreed with the respondent’s interpretation of the earlier reasons and declined to convert the respondent’s willingness to assist with transportation into a binding obligation.

The court confirmed the interim access arrangements and encouraged the parties to develop a shared parenting schedule during the final month of the six‑month interim period.

If the parties are unable to reach agreement, the court indicated that a case conference could be scheduled.