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.

A motion review and new motion concerning child access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant sought to continue virtual video access only, citing the respondent's criminal charges and the enhanced health risks to one child who has Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency.

The respondent opposed the suspension of face-to-face access and sought modification of other restrictions.

The court found that the child's serious genetic condition placed her at enhanced risk from COVID-19 exposure and that the respondent's recent criminal charges and ongoing drug dependency issues, combined with his dismissal of the child's medical vulnerability, undermined his ability to adequately protect the child.

The court suspended face-to-face access temporarily in favour of virtual contact pending further order or written agreement of the parties.

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.

This was a family law costs ruling following a protracted international custody and access dispute involving Hague Convention return proceedings in Brazil and subsequent litigation in Ontario.

The court held the applicant was fully successful in the Hague Convention proceeding and entitled to full indemnity costs for that process.

In the Ontario proceeding, the court found divided success on the major custody issue, but concluded the respondent's unreasonable conduct significantly prolonged the litigation and increased the applicant's costs.

The court declined to find bad faith, but awarded the applicant a reasonable costs amount for the Ontario proceedings in addition to the Brazil-related costs.

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.

The applicant airline sought judicial review of an interlocutory order from the Small Claims Court, which had dismissed its motion to dismiss the respondent's lost baggage claim based on the two-year limitation period in the Warsaw Convention.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, noting that the relief under the Judicial Review Procedure Act is discretionary and the applicant failed to show why the matter should not proceed to trial.