Poroshad Mahdi

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's Answer under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules for failure to comply with prior disclosure orders.

The respondent had failed to retain an expert for an income analysis and valuation as ordered, and had only partially complied with a prior order for financial disclosure.

The court found that while non-compliance was established, striking the Answer was not yet warranted given partial compliance.

The respondent was given a final opportunity to comply with specific deadlines, failing which his Answer would be automatically struck on all issues except parenting.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the applicant.

This decision addresses a motion by the respondent mother seeking enforcement of a costs order against the applicant father as support enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The court analyzed whether legal costs awarded or consented to in family proceedings can be designated as support enforceable by FRO, focusing on whether the costs arose "in relation to the issue of support or maintenance" as required by the statute.

The court found that the underlying trial primarily concerned parenting issues, with minimal focus on child support, and that the mother failed to provide evidence that the legal costs related to support.

Consequently, the motion to enforce costs as support was dismissed, though the mother was permitted to bring an alternative enforcement motion under Rule 8 of the Family Law Rules.

This decision addresses a motion by Mr. Diab for leave to issue a writ of possession against Ms. Poka to enforce prior court orders requiring her to vacate the matrimonial home.

The court reviews the history of orders regarding the sale and possession of the home, the parties' compliance, and the need for further orders to ensure the closing of the sale.

The court finds Ms. Poka is not currently in breach of the sale and vacate orders but makes further orders to ensure compliance and the successful closing of the sale, including surrender of keys, removal of belongings, and financial disclosure.

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses a complex parenting dispute involving the primary residence and decision-making responsibility for a young child following the death of the mother.

The maternal aunt and uncle seek primary residence and relocation of the child to The Netherlands, while the biological father seeks sole decision-making authority and primary residence in Canada.

The Court carefully weighs the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering factors such as the child’s needs, family violence, cultural background, and the impact of relocation.

The Court finds the aunt and uncle to be the primary caregivers and grants them primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility, permitting relocation to The Netherlands with structured parenting time for the father, including supervised virtual contact and unsupervised visits in Canada and The Netherlands.

The decision also addresses concerns about potential unlawful removal of the child to Iran, ordering security measures to protect the child’s safety.

The applicant sought to void a 2013 divorce order, declare a later separation date, or extend time for equalization.

The motion was adjourned due to the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence, non-payment of previously ordered costs, late delivery of inadmissible evidence, and improper scheduling as a short motion despite complex factual disputes.

The court emphasized that the issues required viva voce evidence and that counsel's procedural missteps had caused unnecessary expense.

The motion was adjourned to a case conference, and the applicant was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs thrown away for the current hearing.

This family law trial addressed property equalization, specifically the treatment and payment of a Mahr (dowry) agreement, alleged spousal debts, and post-separation adjustments.

The court granted a divorce and ruled that the Mahr, a domestic contract for 356 Bahar Azadi gold coins, must be included in the Net Family Property (NFP) equalization and valued in Canadian dollars as of the separation date, not as specific performance of gold coins or at current value.

The court rejected one of the husband's alleged debts but accepted another, determined the value of the wife's car, and ordered shared liability for the husband's post-separation rent and the Okanagan property renovation costs.

The husband was also ordered to pay the wife 50% of the tenant's rent collected.

Ultimately, the wife was ordered to pay the husband a net sum of $3,800, and the husband was awarded $45,000 in costs due to the wife's unreasonable position on the Mahr issue.

The applicant sought orders for the disbursement of net proceeds from the sale of the former family residence, including payment of sale-related expenses, responsibility for a mortgage penalty by the respondent, and equal division of remaining proceeds with costs from the respondent's share.

The respondent proposed an interim disbursement of $150,000 each, with the remainder held in trust.

The court ordered $100,000 to be held back from the net proceeds, with the balance divided equally, and awarded costs of the motion to be paid from the respondent's share.

The court noted that significant issues, including child support, spousal support, occupation rent, and Airbnb income accounting, remain unresolved and are scheduled for trial.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Applicant Mother was in breach of previous court orders, a compliance order, and parenting orders, including changing the summer holiday schedule and prohibiting the child from sleeping in the same bed as either parent.

The court found that the Father had not proven material non-compliance by the Mother, noting only isolated incidents of minor non-compliance.

The court also ruled that the Father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances required to vary an interim parenting order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the requested substantive relief was not in the child's best interests and lacked expert evidence.

This endorsement addresses a post-trial case conference concerning an alleged arithmetic error in the Net Family Property (NFP) equalization calculation and, primarily, the issue of costs.

The Applicant sought to increase the NFP equalization payment by $3,000 due to an unincluded date-of-marriage debt, which the court dismissed, finding the loan was not fully advanced until after the marriage.

Regarding costs, the Applicant sought $150,000 in full indemnity costs, arguing her pre-trial offer to settle triggered Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the Applicant's offer was not "crystal clear" regarding the treatment of a matrimonial home loan, thus not activating Rule 18(14).

Considering the parties' conduct and settlement efforts, the court awarded the Applicant partial indemnity costs of $90,000, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

This endorsement addresses a motion by the Applicant to re-open a family law trial to introduce fresh evidence regarding the Respondent's alleged property ownership in Bangladesh, and a determination of costs for the original trial.

The court dismissed the motion to re-open, finding it was brought too late and the proposed evidence was not diligently adduced, which would prejudice the Respondent and necessitate re-doing the trial.

Despite dismissing the motion, the court awarded the Applicant $50,000 in costs, citing the Respondent's litigation misconduct during the trial, including presenting unreliable and potentially fraudulent evidence.

This endorsement addresses issues arising from a prior trial judgment, specifically concerning the calculation of Net Family Property (NFP) equalization, the form of judgment regarding pre-judgment interest, and the timetable for cost submissions.

The court found an arithmetic error in the NFP equalization calculation, agreeing with the respondent that both principal and compound interest of "Parental Loans" should be included as discounted debts.

The court also clarified that the judgment should include pre-judgment interest as per the Courts of Justice Act.

A revised timetable for cost submissions was agreed upon by the parties.

The applicant father sought primary residence of the parties' two children, or in the alternative, specified parenting time and authority for counselling for one child.

The respondent mother opposed, citing a history of domestic violence and alleging the children were negatively impacted.

The court noted serious parental conflict, allegations of domestic violence, and gatekeeping.

While not conclusively determining alienation, the court emphasized the need for quick action where alienation is suspected.

The court made temporary orders granting the mother primary residence and sole medical decision-making, and the father specified parenting time with one child (JS) under certain conditions.

No order was made for parenting time with the older child (AS) but it was encouraged.

The parties were ordered to engage a specific child psychologist for therapeutic treatment, with costs shared.

The court also issued orders regarding communication, recording, and social media use, and declined to award costs due to both parties exceeding practice direction limits.

This family law trial addressed multiple issues arising from a divorce, including the validity of a foreign divorce, ownership of foreign property, equalization of net family property (NFP), adjustments to NFP for asset depletion, child and spousal support arrears, and claims for occupation rent and post-separation adjustments for home expenses.

The court found the foreign divorce invalid due to lack of real and substantial connection to Bangladesh, and dismissed claims regarding foreign property due to unreliable and potentially fraudulent evidence from both parties.

The court adjusted NFP by adding back assets intentionally depleted by the respondent prior to separation.

Child and spousal support arrears were fixed, and ongoing spousal support was ordered.

The respondent's claims for occupation rent and post-separation adjustments for home expenses were dismissed.

The parties separated after a nine-year marriage with no children.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property, spousal support, and a share in the post-separation increase in value of the matrimonial home, which was titled solely in the respondent's name.

The court found the applicant did not establish a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home and was only entitled to share in its value up to the date of separation.

The court valued the respondent's orthodontic practices at $675,000 and determined that funds advanced by the respondent's parents were loans, but discounted them to 10% of their face value due to the low likelihood of repayment.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $606,728.60 and spousal support of $2,228 per month for four and one-half years.

Following a six-day family law trial regarding parenting time and decision-making responsibility, the successful respondent sought costs of $129,037.52.

The applicant argued no costs should be awarded due to his inability to pay and the respondent's conduct.

The court found the respondent was entitled to enhanced costs as her offer to settle the main issue of parenting was as favourable as the trial outcome, though her support offer was not.

Considering the parties' modest financial means, the court reduced the costs claimed, including deducting fees for second counsel and conferences, and ordered the applicant to pay $60,000 in costs over 24 months.

The applicant father and respondent mother disputed parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for their three young children.

The mother had a history of severe alcohol addiction, which led to a car accident with the children in 2017 and a subsequent relapse in 2019.

However, she had maintained sobriety for 18 months prior to trial.

The father sought sole decision-making and limited parenting time, while the mother sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court found that the mother had successfully managed her addiction and that it was in the children's best interests to have equal parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility.

A transition period was ordered to gradually increase the mother's parenting time.

Ongoing child support was terminated upon the commencement of equal parenting time due to the father's disproportionately higher housing costs.

This decision addresses a costs award following a successful motion for temporary spousal support.

The applicant mother sought partial recovery costs of $12,500, while the respondent father argued for no costs.

The court found the mother to be the successful party, noting her settlement offer was closer to the final order than the father's.

The court dismissed the father's argument that the mother's legal aid funding disentitled her to costs, affirming that legally aided persons stand in the same position as other litigants.

The court also determined that the father's pre-litigation conduct, while unreasonable, did not constitute "bad faith" for the purpose of full costs recovery.

Considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs sought, the court awarded the mother $7,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable monthly.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support seeking $4,564 per month pending trial.

The respondent opposed the motion but offered to consent to $2,500 per month.

The court considered the applicant's need and the respondent's ability to pay.

The applicant had not been employed since 2018 and was receiving only Canada Emergency Response Benefit income of $2,000 per month, with monthly expenses of approximately $7,009.

The respondent received monthly income from a structured settlement annuity of $6,850 plus CERB of $2,000, with monthly expenses of approximately $8,748.

The court determined that the applicant had established a prima facie case for entitlement to temporary support and that the respondent had the ability to pay.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $3,900 per month commencing September 1, 2020, with credit for rent payments already made by the respondent.

Following a motion regarding spousal support and striking pleadings where success was divided, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $10,000, while the respondent sought no costs or $10,000 payable to him.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and noted the respondent's unreasonable litigation behaviour, including failing to provide disclosure or comply with court orders.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion heard on September 16, 2020.

The Applicant sought $10,000 in costs, while the Respondent requested no costs or $10,000 from the Applicant.

The court found divided success on the underlying motion issues (striking pleadings, spousal support, indexing support), but determined the Applicant was the more successful party, particularly regarding spousal support.

The Respondent's litigation behaviour was deemed unreasonable due to non-compliance with orders and lack of cooperation.

Considering the divided success, the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, and offers to settle, the court awarded the Applicant $9,000 in costs, inclusive of HST.

Costs for a prior case conference were not awarded as they were not reserved to the motion judge.