Rinku Deswal

Supplementary reasons for judgment addressing costs following a five-day family law trial.

The court initially awarded the applicant/mother child support arrears and costs, but upon discovering calculation errors in the original judgment, revised the substantive award downward.

The court then reconsidered the costs award, finding the respondent/father was the more successful party as the mother failed to beat his settlement offer and recovered only a modest amount.

The court awarded costs to the father but reduced the amount due to his unreasonable conduct in withholding financial disclosure throughout the litigation.

The mother was ordered to pay the net amount after set-off.

This decision concerns a long-running family law dispute between Daniela Balian and Dikran Balian regarding child support arrears and section 7 expenses for their two children, both of whom are on the autism spectrum.

The court found that the father underpaid child support and section 7 expenses between 2003 and 2009, ordering him to pay $27,150 in arrears.

The court also awarded the mother $30,000 in costs.

The decision addresses the legal framework for child support, the importance of financial disclosure, and the calculation of arrears, as well as the court’s approach to claims for special expenses and undue hardship.

The court issued procedural directions in a dispute between the parties, granting the respondent leave to file a rebuttal affidavit.

The parties were directed to meet to discuss a potential consent sale of the home, participate in mediation, and a hearing date was scheduled for the application.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment regarding the loss of a coin collection she entrusted to the defendant for appraisal.

The court found the defendant, a gratuitous bailee, negligent for losing the coins, as he could not recall their location or provide a reasonable explanation for their loss.

Summary judgment was granted on the issue of liability, with the quantum of damages to be determined at a subsequent trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to stay the election of the Board of Directors of the defendant religious temple pending the adjudication of a broader motion.

The defendants challenged the plaintiffs' standing, arguing they were not members of the temple.

The court found that at least one plaintiff had standing based on uncontradicted evidence of her long-standing devotion and the denial of membership application forms.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm from the potential loss of the right to vote, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

In a family law proceeding, the court issued a supplementary endorsement confirming scheduling directions previously provided.

The trial was ordered to proceed for seven days commencing the week of November 12, 2013.

The court directed that failure by either party to obtain and deliver specified expert reports would not result in vacating the scheduled trial date.

The parties were permitted to consider amending pleadings and undertaking disclosure relating to child support and equalization, but the court emphasized that adding issues must not delay the scheduled trial.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class proceeding sought court approval of a proposed settlement under s. 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleged that a private college failed to adequately disclose that its dental hygiene program lacked accreditation, delaying graduates’ eligibility to write licensing examinations.

After six years of litigation and two unsuccessful mediations, the parties reached a settlement providing $115,000 to be distributed among class members and a $60,000 contribution toward class counsel’s costs.

The court held that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite a single objection concerning allocation.

The court also approved the negotiated contribution to class counsel’s fees given the significant litigation risk and modest recovery relative to counsel’s expenditures.