Saisha Mahil

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a July 2, 2024 decision of Justice Black.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the single issue of whether the Anton Piller order was correctly enlarged to include the business and phone computer of one of the moving parties.

Leave to appeal on all other issues was dismissed.

The court also granted a stay of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the underlying order pending the appeal, with no costs awarded due to divided success.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their claim to include Cara Vaccarino as a defendant and requested an order for the mirroring of her electronic devices and email account to preserve confidential and proprietary information.

This request arose after it was discovered that another defendant, Ms. Anderson, had forwarded confidential information to Ms. Vaccarino.

Despite Ms. Vaccarino's assertion that she did not recall opening or using the email, the court found it appropriate to order the mirroring to preserve evidence and determine the use of the information.

The court ordered the mirroring to cover the period from June 1, 2023, to the present, with counsel to coordinate the least disruptive process.

This endorsement addresses the jurisdiction of a judge in a civil settlement conference to order the transfer of a file from the civil division to the family division of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant had initiated a civil application for partition and sale of a jointly owned home, despite unresolved family law issues.

The respondent sought to transfer the matter to family court.

The court found that the application was in the wrong forum, constituting "forum shopping" and splitting issues.

Citing Rules of Civil Procedure 50.13 and relevant case law, the judge confirmed the power to make procedural orders, including transfers, at a case conference without a formal motion, provided informal notice is given.

The matter was transferred to the family division, and a family settlement conference was ordered.

The applicant's counsel's aggressive objection and the applicant's inadequate attendance were noted.

The applicant brought a motion for financial disclosure, temporary spousal support, and costs in a family law proceeding.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests for formal pension and asset valuations, finding the respondent's existing disclosure sufficient, but ordered the respondent to provide an Equifax report.

The court awarded temporary spousal support of $387 per month, adopting the mid-range amount based on the parties' 2019 incomes.

No costs were awarded due to divided success and the respondent's unreasonable conduct regarding disclosure.