Renu J. Mandhane

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt for repeatedly breaching a final order regarding his overnight parenting time.

The court found that the mother intentionally breached clear and unequivocal terms of the order on multiple occasions, often requiring the father to resort to police enforcement.

Given the mother's pattern of disregarding court orders and resorting to self-help measures, the court declined to exercise its discretion against a contempt finding, concluding it was in the child's best interests.

The mother was found in contempt, and the matter was adjourned for a penalty hearing.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's financial pleadings for his failure to comply with previous disclosure and costs orders.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting the father had made a good faith effort to provide most of the outstanding disclosure and that less drastic remedies were available for the unpaid costs.

However, the court ordered that the sale of the matrimonial home proceed without the father's consent due to his failure to cooperate with a previous order.

The father was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs for the appearance.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a separation agreement reached via email correspondence.

The responding party argued that the moving party had repudiated the agreement by changing counsel and failing to sign a formal settlement agreement before the offer's expiry.

The court found no evidence of repudiation, noting that the moving party's retention of new counsel to review the agreement did not constitute resiling from it.

The court concluded that a binding agreement had been reached and granted the motion, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the moving party.

Following an 11-day trial where the plaintiffs were successful, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The plaintiffs had made multiple offers to settle that were more favourable than the trial judgment.

Applying Rule 49.10(1) and Rule 57.01(1), the court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $724,850.49, noting the defendants' unreasonable positions during the litigation.

Several nephrologists practiced together in a partnership and provided services at a hospital.

The hospital paid funds to a corporation controlled by three of the partners, excluding two other partners from their share.

The excluded partners discovered this arrangement and sued for unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found that the defendants were unjustly enriched and ordered them to pay compensatory damages based on the plaintiffs' proportionate contributions to overhead, as well as punitive damages for abusing their positions of trust.

The accused brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to quash a search warrant executed at his residence, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The ITO relied heavily on a tip from a confidential informant regarding drug trafficking and firearms possession.

The court applied the Garofoli and Debot frameworks, finding the informant's tip was highly compelling and credible, which compensated for weaknesses in police corroboration.

The court concluded the issuing justice had sufficient reliable information to issue the warrant, finding no s. 8 breach.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee requiring her to attend in person to be cautioned regarding unprofessional communications.

The applicant had made inappropriate comments in the workplace while experiencing emotional distress related to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the caution was a remedial measure within the Committee's jurisdiction and was reasonable given the professional standards expected of physicians.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the decision violated her equality rights under the Charter, as she failed to establish that the caution had an adverse impact on her or on people with mental health disabilities generally.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a bus driver to a non-driving position after he was terminated for a fatal accident and convicted of careless driving.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to apply the proper test for discharge and unreasonably found the employment relationship was not irretrievably damaged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably applied the relevant factors, including the grievor's record, remorse, and the nature of the misconduct, in exercising his statutory discretion to substitute a penalty.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Belobaba J. dated January 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable to the Foodland plaintiffs.

The self-represented client brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order regarding a dispute with her former solicitors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the client to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding solicitors.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 1, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court reviewed the request in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following an 11-day trial concerning property equalization, child support, spousal support, and a claim for damages related to family violence.

The court found the Mother (Respondent) to be more successful overall, particularly on the novel tort claim for family violence and the Father's income imputation.

Despite the Father's arguments for divided success, the court awarded costs to the Mother, considering her relative success, the parties' conduct, the complexity of issues, and the Mother's offers to settle.

The Father was ordered to pay the Mother $20,000 in all-inclusive costs, which included a portion for her self-representation time.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, arguing the allegations were scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The impugned pleadings detailed the plaintiff's long-standing relationship with the directing mind of the defendant corporations, including allegations of a cult-like following, unpaid labour, and promises of an ownership interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the allegations were relevant to the plaintiff's claims for an oppression remedy and constructive dismissal, and that the plaintiff was entitled to have his claim tested on the merits.

This document provides supplementary reasons to a prior judgment (A.A. v. K.A., 2022 ONSC 1303), correcting calculation errors related to retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, and the final accounting between the parties.

The corrections resulted in an updated total amount owing from the Father to the Mother, specifically an additional $8,049 in full satisfaction of family and civil claims, and revised retroactive spousal support of $30,555.

The court also ordered that neither party claim tax deductions for the retroactive support due to the revised after-tax cost/benefit calculations.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleadings and proceed to an uncontested trial due to the applicant's breach of multiple disclosure orders.

The self-represented applicant did not oppose the motion, stating he could not afford counsel or adequately represent himself.

The court struck the applicant's pleadings, granted the respondent leave to proceed to an uncontested trial, and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs to be deducted from any future equalization payment owed to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion for sole decision-making authority to vaccinate the parties' two children against COVID-19.

The respondent opposed the motion, citing concerns about the mother's disclosure of family medical history to the pediatrician and alleging tactical motives.

The court took judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine for children and found no reason to delay vaccination.

The motion was granted, and the applicant was awarded costs.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard an 11-day trial concerning property equalization, child support, spousal support, and a claim for damages related to family violence.

The court recognized a common law tort of family violence, finding the Father liable for a 16-year pattern of physical, psychological, and financial abuse.

The Mother was awarded $150,000 in compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages for the tort.

The court also made findings on the parties' incomes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and determined the final equalization payment, largely in the Mother's favour.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, seeking to impute income to the respondent father.

The father had unilaterally reduced his child support payments multiple times post-separation and provided insufficient evidence of his current income or inability to work overtime.

The court imputed the father's income at $97,000 under s. 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered him to pay table child support and mid-range spousal support based on that amount.

The mother's request for contribution to childcare expenses was dismissed as she was working minimal hours.

The matter was transferred to London on consent.

The mother brought a motion seeking a section 30 assessment of the children and a right of first refusal during the father's parenting time.

The parties continued to live in the same house post-separation and engaged in high-conflict monitoring of each other.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a right of first refusal would exacerbate conflict and that a section 30 assessment was overly intrusive and disproportionate.

The court maintained the existing 2/2/3 parenting schedule and ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer on consent.