R. Avery Zeidman

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce unsigned Minutes of Settlement purportedly reached at a settlement conference.

The applicant mother opposed, arguing no binding agreement was reached until the Minutes were signed.

The court found that while the parties had agreed on the substantive terms, the objective evidence demonstrated that the execution of the formal Minutes was an essential procedural term necessary for the formation of the contract.

As the Minutes were never executed due to a disagreement over a specific clause, there was a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the respondent was granted leave to bring a motion for expanded parenting time.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful application by Rosanna Di Frangia to be appointed guardian of her mother's property, a position opposed by Maurizio Campolucci.

The court found Rosanna entirely successful in the underlying application and noted Maurizio's unreasonable conduct, including his failure to comply with a prior order and his lack of settlement efforts.

Despite Maurizio not filing costs submissions, the court carefully reviewed Rosanna's request for full indemnity ($136,362.66).

The court awarded Rosanna costs of $100,000.00, representing an elevated partial indemnity (approximately 70% of full recovery), payable by Maurizio by January 2025, or from his share of the estate if unpaid.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside the child support provisions of the parties' Minutes of Settlement, or alternatively the entire agreement, alleging the applicant father failed to disclose significant assets and income.

The father consented to setting aside the child support and section 7 expenses provisions.

The court declined to set aside the entire agreement on a motion, finding genuine issues of fact regarding financial disclosure that require a trial.

The court ordered temporary child support based on the father's agreed income, leaving the issue of imputing income and retroactive support for trial.

The appellant law firm appealed the dismissal of its motion for a charging order under the Solicitors Act and the amendment of trial and costs orders under the Family Law Rules.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the determination that the firm was not "instrumental" in preserving property for a charging order, and that the amendment to secure costs was appropriate under Rule 25(19)(c) to address an inadvertent omission.

The respondents brought motions for access to their incapable mother, whose personal care and property were managed by the applicants as joint guardians.

The motions became moot when the mother passed away before an order could be finalized.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that while the respondents were entitled to some measure of success on the access issue, their unreasonable conduct precipitated the motions.

The court concluded that a no-costs order would best serve the objectives of indemnification, sanctioning unreasonable conduct, and encouraging settlement of remaining estate issues.

The parties brought competing motions regarding the matrimonial home, with the applicant mother seeking exclusive possession and the respondent father seeking a nesting order.

The court found a significant level of toxicity and conflict between the parents, making a nesting arrangement inappropriate.

The mother was granted temporary exclusive possession of the home, as she was better able to shield the children from conflict and the father had alternative accommodation available.

The mother was also permitted to restructure the mortgage, and no spousal or child support was ordered at this time.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support and an advance for litigation expenses following a long marriage and separation.

The respondent opposed entitlement, argued the applicant was intentionally underemployed, and sought disclosure relating to the applicant’s cohabiting partner while also requesting his own advance for costs.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie entitlement to support arising from the traditional marriage and her economic disadvantage.

Due to the respondent’s failure to provide disclosure necessary for an expert income report, the court accepted an interim income figure including an added-back amount for business expenses.

Interim spousal support was ordered below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range to account for contributions from the applicant’s cohabiting partner, while both parties’ requests for advance costs were dismissed and the disclosure request adjourned.

Following the striking of the husband’s pleadings for failure to comply with financial disclosure orders, the matter proceeded as an uncontested family law trial on financial issues.

The court addressed retroactive child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

Applying the principles governing retroactive child support, including those set out in DBS v SRG, the court found that some delay by the wife in seeking support was unreasonable but that the husband’s conduct and failure to support the children were significant factors.

Retroactive child support was ordered from September 1, 2010 and retroactive spousal support from May 1, 2011.

The husband’s interest in the matrimonial home was vested in the wife to satisfy equalization and support arrears, and ongoing support obligations were established.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for interim and interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from completing a share sale pursuant to a unanimous shareholders agreement in the context of a shareholder dispute.

The plaintiffs alleged improper termination of a director and employment relationship and sought to preserve the status quo pending trial.

Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald v. Canada (AG), the court accepted that a serious issue to be tried existed but held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The court found that the remedies sought, including share valuation and damages, could be adequately compensated monetarily at trial.

As a result, the motion for injunctive relief was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The respondent mother brought a motion to find the applicant father in contempt and to strike his pleadings due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and his delay in paying the retainer for a court-ordered assessment of the children.

The court found that the father willfully breached multiple court orders, prejudicing the mother's ability to determine his income for support purposes and delaying the resolution of custody issues.

Applying the test for striking pleadings under Rule 14(23) of the Family Law Rules, the court struck the father's pleadings on the issues of equalization and support, allowing the mother to proceed to an uncontested hearing on those issues.

The court declined to strike his pleadings regarding custody and access in the best interests of the children.