Russel A. Molot

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment in a civil action arising from the plaintiff's arrest and prosecution for assault during a family law dispute.

The plaintiff claimed malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of mental suffering, negligent investigation, false arrest, false imprisonment, and Charter violations against her ex-husband, the OPP officers, and the Crown.

The court found that the criminal proceedings were not terminated in the plaintiff's favour, as the charges were withdrawn pursuant to a diversion agreement, and there was no evidence of malice or investigative deficiency on the part of the police.

Against the ex-husband, the court found insufficient evidence of deliberate falsehood to police or malicious intent.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against all defendants.

The applicants, maternal grandparents, sought an interim contact order for their three grandchildren under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondents, the biological parents, had terminated all contact in October 2021, alleging the grandparents repeatedly tried to undermine their relationship with the children and caused psychological distress.

The court denied the grandparents' motion for interim relief, finding that the parents' decision to terminate contact was not arbitrary but was a reasoned, incremental response motivated by the children's emotional needs, given the grandparents' consistent disregard for boundaries and attempts to interfere with parental authority.

The court emphasized the high deference owed to parental decision-making unless parents are found to be acting arbitrarily.

This application sought court approval for the settlement of a Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS) claim, a contingency fee retainer agreement, and the proposed solicitor-client account for a catastrophically impaired applicant.

The court approved the $935,000 SABS settlement, finding it reasonable despite delays and erosion of the lump sum.

However, the contingency fee agreement was dismissed due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act and its regulations.

The solicitor-client account was approved on a fee-for-service basis, with some disbursements disallowed, resulting in a fixed amount of $193,365.43.

In additional reasons following a motion, the court determined the quantum of interim child and spousal support and the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to find that the eldest child resided primarily with the applicant due to conflicting evidence, deferring the issue to trial.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

To address dissipation concerns, the court ordered 25% of the respondent's share of the home sale proceeds to be held in trust.

Following a motion where the respondent was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $8,772.10 based on an offer to settle, while the applicant argued for a reduced award of $2,500 payable at the end of the proceedings.

The court found the respondent was entitled to costs and that his offer to settle was reasonable, but reduced the quantum to $6,000 plus HST for proportionality.

The costs were ordered payable following the trial or comprehensive resolution of the matter.

The Applicant sought an order for the sale of a property in which she held a 50% interest via a trust agreement, and an adjustment of temporary child support.

The Respondent filed a cross-motion seeking to reduce/expunge child support arrears and declare the property solely his, attempting to set aside the trust agreement.

The court ordered the sale of the property, dismissing the Respondent's request to invalidate the trust agreement due to lack of evidence.

The court imputed income to the Respondent at a higher level due to insufficient financial disclosure and adjusted child support accordingly, including a set-off amount.

The Respondent's request to expunge child support arrears was dismissed due to his unilateral cessation of payments.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary sole custody, child support based on an imputed income of $550,000, and retroactive support.

The respondent opposed the imputed income, claiming hardship, and sought specified overnight parenting time.

The court declined to impute income at this stage, instead basing temporary child support on the respondent's 2018 income of $492,153.

The court ordered retroactive support adjustments, declined to make a temporary custody order, and granted the respondent overnight parenting time every second weekend.

The moving party mother sought to proceed with a case conference for her motion to change custody and access, arguing the matter was urgent despite the COVID-19 court suspension directive.

She claimed urgency based on the youngest child's alleged suicide threat regarding access to her.

The court found the matter was not urgent, noting the responding party father had already taken appropriate steps by seeking medical assessment and counselling for the child, and that supervised access was unlikely to occur during the pandemic.

The matter was adjourned and the mother was ordered to pay $500 in costs.

The respondent, Gady Sirota, brought a motion to remove Gonen Snir as counsel for the applicant, Bracha Yocheved Sirota, alleging a conflict of interest due to a prior close personal relationship and the exchange of confidential information relevant to the matrimonial proceeding.

The court found that Mr. Snir had a close personal relationship with Mr. Sirota and received confidential information, including advice on marital difficulties, which created a clear conflict of interest.

Despite the applicant's argument regarding her right to counsel of choice and language barriers, the court ordered the removal of Mr. Snir as counsel, emphasizing the integrity of the judicial system over the right to chosen counsel in this instance.

This motion concerned the application of the six-month limitation period under the Succession Law Reform Act for a dependant's support claim.

The respondent, executor of the deceased's estate, sought a ruling that the application was statute-barred, arguing the limitation period began when the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) became the applicant's statutory guardian of property.

The applicant, through the OPGT, contended that the limitation period did not run until the OPGT formally acted as litigation guardian after a thorough investigation.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the limitation period did not run while the applicant was incapable and not represented by a litigation guardian, and that the OPGT's appointment as guardian of property did not automatically make it a litigation guardian for the purpose of commencing the limitation period.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for interim access to his adoptive daughter, Victoria, aged 13.

The parties had been separated since 2011, and access difficulties escalated in 2014, ceasing entirely in September 2015.

The father alleged parental alienation, while the mother cited Victoria's wishes and negative home environment with the father's new family.

The court, considering the child's best interests under the Divorce Act and Children's Law Reform Act, found that both parents had failed to adequately support Victoria through family changes.

The court ordered a gradual resumption of access visits, starting weekly and increasing to twice weekly, to occur in the community, with a review period.

The court emphasized the custodial parent's positive obligation to encourage contact and cautioned against making findings of parental alienation without individualized assessment.

The applicants sought guardianship of their adult niece, H.A., and a declaration of incapacity.

The respondent father initially opposed but later did not oppose these orders.

The court found the respondent's opposition to the guardianship and incapacity declaration to be tactical and without merit, warranting substantial indemnity costs for that aspect.

However, the applicants had conflated guardianship issues with unresolved family law support issues, which generated unnecessary costs.

The court awarded the applicants one-third of their claimed substantial indemnity costs, specifically $14,000 plus HST, attributable to the incapacity/guardianship issues, with other costs to be determined in ongoing family law proceedings.