Rob Moubarak

The applicant father sought costs after a successful motion for temporary parenting time.

The respondent mother also sought costs.

The court found that neither party's offers to settle met the technical requirements for costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

While there was divided success on the underlying motion, the father was deemed the more successful party overall.

The court considered the parties' conduct, particularly the mother's unreasonable allegations and interference with parenting time, and awarded the father $6,000 in costs, payable monthly, dismissing the mother's costs claim.

The plaintiff in a construction dispute brought a motion to compel the defendants to answer questions refused at discovery and to produce a further and better affidavit of documents.

The core issue was whether the defendants implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege regarding advice received during the negotiation of an Amending Agreement.

The Master found no waiver regarding the negotiation of the agreement, but found an implicit waiver regarding advice on payments made after the agreement.

The Master also ordered disclosure of competing quotations but denied requests for consultant files and financial means.

The plaintiff was granted leave to complete the discovery and awarded partial indemnity costs of $6,500.

The plaintiff, Caruk-Hall Construction Inc. (CH), moved to stay its action and the defendants' counterclaim pending a Tarion regulatory proceeding, or alternatively, to stay or strike paragraphs related to CH's alleged failure to enroll the project under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act (ONHWPA).

The defendants opposed.

The court found a substantial overlap of issues regarding CH's "builder" status and ONHWPA enrollment between the civil action and the Tarion proceeding.

While acknowledging the penal nature of the Tarion charges and potential self-incrimination for CH's principals, the court determined that existing protections (implied undertaking rule, sealing orders) were sufficient.

The court rejected a full stay, noting the Construction Act's mandate for summary lien actions and the lack of evidence for double recovery.

Ultimately, the court granted a limited stay of only the "Overlapping Paragraphs" in the defendants' pleading that directly concerned CH's builder status and ONHWPA enrollment, finding the OCJ to be the more appropriate forum for these specific issues.

Following a motion concerning the vacating of construction liens upon posting reduced security, the moving parties sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $7,700.

The court considered the circumstances of the motion, including short service of the original motion, the fact that the ultimate relief ordered differed from the relief originally sought, and the novelty of the reduced-security structure proposed under the Construction Lien Act.

The court found the responding lien claimants’ opposition to be reasonable and noted that alternative statutory mechanisms were available to the moving parties without requiring the motion.

Given the mixed success and the conduct of the moving parties, the court declined to award costs.

Mortgagees brought a motion under ss. 44(2) and 78 of the Construction Lien Act seeking to vacate five construction liens from title to condominium units by posting alternative security.

The development consisted of 26 commercial condominium units, most of which had already been sold, while five units remained unsold.

Lien claimants argued that security equal to nearly the full amount of the liens should be posted in cash from sale proceeds.

The court held that the mortgagees’ proposal—posting partial cash security while leaving the liens on title to the remaining unsold units—provided more than adequate combined land and cash security and better preserved potential equity by reducing mortgage debt and accumulating interest.

The court ordered the liens vacated from the sold units upon posting security while remaining on the unsold units pending further order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement arising from a dispute between joint investors in a Toronto property held partly in trust.

The moving party argued that email exchanges and communications between the parties and their lawyers confirmed an agreement for the purchase of the respondent’s interest for $97,000.

The court held that the correspondence demonstrated ongoing negotiations rather than a concluded agreement and that the parties intended any settlement to be formalized through a written agreement of purchase and sale.

Essential terms—including refinancing the mortgage, discharge of liability, and a closing date—remained unresolved.

The court concluded that no binding settlement had been reached and dismissed the motion.