Ravinder Pal Sawhney

The appellants appealed a Superior Court judgment that enforced Minutes of Settlement and granted summary judgment for $90,000 to the respondents.

The Minutes of Settlement required the appellants to pay $40,000 in instalments and deliver consents, including a consent to judgment for $120,000.

The appellants failed to deliver consents and stopped the final $10,000 payment.

The motion judge rejected arguments that the pandemic or respondents' separate arrangements with other settling parties altered obligations, and found no error in converting the motion to summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the process or the conclusions, including that the $90,000 award was not a penalty.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Respondent brought a motion to remove the Applicant's counsel, Clarissa D’Avella, and her law firm, citing a conflict of interest.

The conflict arose from the Applicant's intention to call her previous counsel, Ms. Cebulak (who practices at the same firm as Ms. D’Avella), as a witness in a focused hearing concerning the validity of a separation agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the removal was necessary for the proper administration of justice.

The judge applied a flexible approach, considering factors such as the stage of proceedings, the likelihood and significance of the witness's testimony, the good faith of the moving party, and the litigant's right to choose counsel.

The court concluded that the potential for actual conflict or tainting of evidence was remote given the limited and non-controversial nature of the anticipated testimony and the measures proposed by the Applicant to mitigate concerns.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding of contempt on three access provisions in a custody and access order.

The motion judge had found the appellant in contempt for: (1) failing to provide the children's summer activity schedule by May 1 from 2012 to 2015; (2) denying access during Easter weekend in 2015; and (3) denying access to the son on his birthday in October 2015.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside all three findings of contempt, finding that the record did not support the motion judge's findings and that the motion judge's reasons were insufficient.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion for child and spousal support brought by Mona Ayesh against Abdelsalam Zeidan.

Ms. Ayesh was successful in obtaining support orders.

She sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while Mr. Zeidan claimed his own costs, arguing his offer to settle was more favourable.

The court found Ms. Ayesh was presumptively entitled to costs due to her success and Mr. Zeidan's unreasonable conduct, specifically his failure to provide full financial disclosure, which amounted to bad faith under the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court awarded Ms. Ayesh full recovery costs of $14,133.48, enforceable as child support.

The plaintiff, having succeeded in a summary trial under simplified rules for a construction lien claim, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants argued for proportionality and a lower award.

The court found the plaintiff presumptively entitled to costs but rejected substantial indemnity due to issues with the plaintiff's offer to settle (all-inclusive amount and 30-day expiry term).

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing fees at $35,000 plus HST and disbursements, totaling $44,813.92.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment concerning the disposition of approximately $53,000 in proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The trial judge found the husband was the sole owner because the wife had gifted her interest to him to avoid creditors.

The trial judge also found the wife's equalization claim was statute-barred, having fixed the date of separation at December 21, 1996, with the application issued in August 2010.

In the alternative, the trial judge found an equal division would be unconscionable due to the wife's reckless depletion of family property, the husband's payment of all acquisition costs and expenses, and the wife's abusive and controlling behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings regarding the date of separation or ownership of the matrimonial home.