Sabrina Herscovitch

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's claims for retroactive child support, equalization of net family property, and a resulting trust over her pension.

The court dismissed the claim for retroactive child support because the adult child was no longer a student and therefore not a 'child of the marriage' when the application was commenced.

The equalization claim was dismissed because it was a claim provable in bankruptcy and was extinguished when the respondent was discharged from bankruptcy.

The resulting trust claim was dismissed for lack of factual foundation.

The applicant's claim for a divorce order was permitted to proceed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation and breach of the Consumer Protection Act arising from a vehicle purchase and credit rebuilding program.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to include admissions made by the corporate defendant in a related OMVIC proceeding.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the pleading, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding the alleged misrepresentations and statutory violations that could not be resolved on the documentary record alone.

Following earlier reasons enforcing minutes of settlement in family litigation concerning claims to a matrimonial home and alleged resulting trust, the court determined the parties’ entitlement to costs of multiple motions.

The applicant had been substantially successful on her motion to enforce the settlement and the respondent spouse’s conduct in refusing to comply with the settlement was found unreasonable, though not amounting to bad faith.

The added respondents (heirs of the registered owner of the property) sought substantial costs but were found not to have achieved clear success and their participation was closely aligned with the unsuccessful respondent spouse.

Considering Rule 24 of the Family Court Rules and fairness between the parties, the court declined to order costs against the applicant and instead ordered the respondents jointly and severally to pay the applicant’s motion costs.

The applicant wife brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement reached at mediation.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion to set aside the agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging failure to disclose, unconscionability, and undue influence by his own counsel.

The added respondents (heirs of the husband's father) sought to dismiss the application against them and requested occupation rent from the applicant.

The court dismissed the husband's motion to set aside the agreement, finding no failure to disclose, no unconscionability, and that issues with his own counsel did not constitute undue influence.

The court also dismissed the claim for occupation rent, finding it lacked a clear legal basis and was not equitable.

The Minutes of Settlement were upheld.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking disclosure of medical records, a mental capacity assessment, and other orders under the Substitute Decisions Act relating to the respondent spouse’s alleged incapacity to manage his affairs.

The respondents opposed and cross‑applied for dismissal of claims against adult children and for partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found that two professional assessments and counsel’s representations established that the respondent spouse was mentally competent to instruct counsel and manage his affairs.

The applicant’s motion was dismissed, the claims against the adult children were struck, and the court ordered partition and sale of the matrimonial home as no prejudice to Family Law Act rights was demonstrated.