Sandra Nishikawa

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and section 7 expenses for the parties' child.

The respondent father, who had not seen the child in over three years and failed to provide financial disclosure, sought joint custody and child support for his adult daughter from a previous relationship.

The court granted the mother sole custody and permitted her to travel and obtain government documents without the father's consent.

The father was granted supervised access.

The court imputed an annual income of $42,000 to the father due to intentional underemployment and ordered him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, as well as his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The father's claim for child support for his daughter was dismissed.

The Respondents moved for an order to initialize the names of the parties and children in the proceeding to protect their identities.

The Applicant consented to initializing the children's names but opposed initializing the parties' names.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test and considering s. 70 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found that initializing both the parties' and children's names was necessary to prevent serious emotional harm to the children due to the sensitive and unique facts of the case, which involved a long-term deception regarding parentage.

The court determined that the salutary effects of the order outweighed the deleterious effects on the open court principle, especially given the limited nature of the order (initials only, no sealing or publication ban).

The motion was granted, and costs were awarded to the Respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought an urgent interim order to vary a French parenting order, requiring the respondent to exercise parenting time in Toronto due to the COVID-19 international travel advisory.

The court found jurisdiction, recognized the pandemic as a material change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests, and granted the motion, ordering the respondent to exercise parenting time in Toronto while the travel advisory remains in effect.

The moving party husband brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Audet J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it had no merit and was an unjustifiable waste of resources.

Costs were awarded to the responding party wife on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $741,000 in damages, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs prior to the plaintiff's offer to settle, finding that the defendant's bad faith did not amount to egregious conduct.

However, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer to settle, as the plaintiff obtained a judgment more favourable than its offer.

Costs were fixed at $159,666.62, with reductions made for disproportionate time spent by senior counsel.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding the sale of a property, "Robin Hill Farm." The applicant argued that no binding agreement was reached and that his former counsel lacked authority to settle on his behalf.

The court found that the parties had agreed to all essential terms of the settlement through counsel's correspondence and that the applicant's former solicitor had ostensible authority to bind him.

The motion was granted, enforcing the settlement agreement.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the Respondent successfully obtained an order resuming parenting time with the parties' daughter, necessitated by the Applicant's non-compliance with a previous order.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the Respondent to be the successful party on the underlying motion.

The Respondent sought full indemnity costs, while the Applicant sought partial indemnity.

The court denied full indemnity costs, finding no bad faith by the Applicant and noting the Respondent's offer to settle did not meet the criteria for full recovery under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the Respondent partial indemnity costs of $3,000, all-inclusive.

The respondent brought a motion to change to reduce interim child support and s. 7 expenses due to a change in employment.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding he failed to prove a material change in circumstances or an urgent need for interim relief, largely due to incomplete financial disclosure and a history of non-compliance.

A minor variation was made to the final order, requiring child support for Victoria for four months a year when she resides with the applicant, instead of 12 months.

The defendant, Recipe Unlimited Corporation (Cara), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff, Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd.'s (JGC), claims for breach of contract and common law reasonable notice.

The court found that JGC had waived the automatic renewal clause of its consulting agreement with Cara, causing the agreement to terminate.

The court also determined that JGC was not a dependent contractor, primarily due to its admission of no financial dependency on Cara and the significant other business interests of its principal, Jack Ganz.

Consequently, JGC's claims for breach of contract and common law reasonable notice were dismissed.

A minor claim regarding a projector and inventory was also dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The applicant brought a motion to change a previous order, seeking implementation of an equal parenting schedule and a review of spousal support.

The respondent opposed, arguing the existing schedule was already equal and no material change had occurred.

The court found that the previous order explicitly contemplated a move to equal parenting time and a spousal support review, thus no material change was required.

The respondent was heavily criticized for persistent failures to provide full financial disclosure and for obstructive behavior regarding children's documents and activities.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering an alternating week equal parenting schedule, terminating spousal support, imputing income to the respondent due to disclosure failures, and adjusting child support retroactively.

The plaintiff landlord sued the tenant for breach of a commercial lease after the tenant abandoned the premises.

The tenant alleged fundamental breach and breach of quiet enjoyment due to various issues including insect infestation, mold, roof leaks, HVAC problems, elevator breakdowns, and safety concerns.

The court found that the tenant failed to establish a fundamental breach or breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, noting inconsistent evidence, lack of proper notice to the landlord, and the landlord's reasonable efforts to address reported issues.

The court also found that the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate damages.

The landlord's claim for rental arrears and future rent was granted, while the tenant's claims for set-off and rent abatement were dismissed.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' four children, alleging the respondent withheld them contrary to an existing consent order.

The respondent sought to impose a condition prohibiting the children from having contact with the applicant's current partner's children due to COVID-19 health concerns.

The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate an increased health risk and that the applicant's blended family, despite maintaining separate residences, could constitute a "household" for public health guideline purposes.

The motion was granted, enforcing the original parenting schedule without the additional condition sought by the respondent.

The applicant, Le Congrès Hellénique du Québec (CHQ), sought declarations that the respondent, Canadian Hellenic Congress (CHC), had improperly adopted its 2016 Constitution, invalidly created the Quebec Regional Council (QRC), and conducted void 2016 elections.

The court found that the 2016 Constitution was not properly adopted due to significant procedural defects and non-compliance with the 1999 Constitution's amendment procedures, which constituted a breach of contractual obligations to its constituent organizations.

The QRC was also declared improperly created as a provincial organization already existed in Quebec and no valid by-law was passed for its establishment.

While irregularities in the 2016 elections were noted, the court declined to nullify them due to lack of specific evidence impacting the result and the impracticability of the requested relief.

Certain provisions of the 2016 Constitution were declared of no force or effect until properly amended, with the corresponding 1999 Constitution provisions applying in the interim.

The respondent brought an urgent motion to resume parenting time with the parties' daughter, which the applicant had withheld due to COVID-19 concerns.

The applicant sought to suspend the parenting schedule.

The court affirmed that existing parenting orders should continue unless there are compelling reasons for change, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for parental cooperation during the pandemic.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to suspend the schedule and ordered both parties to adhere to the existing agreement and order, along with strict COVID-19 health protocols.

The plaintiff, Voysus Connection Experts Inc., initiated an action alleging fraud and other breaches against former employees.

Voysus obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction against two defendants, Tayyab Shaikh and Anisha Shaikh, which was subsequently dismissed due to Voysus's failure of full and frank disclosure.

Voysus's motion to strike certain evidence from the defendants was also dismissed, though a confidentiality order was issued.

This endorsement addresses the costs of both motions.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for the Mareva motion and costs for the motion to strike.

The court found that while Voysus's conduct warranted reproach, the defendants' conduct also unnecessarily increased costs.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs of $70,000.00 for the Mareva motion and ordered each party to bear their own costs for the motion to strike, concluding that the motion to strike was misconceived due to the defendants' actions.

The plaintiff initiated a motion for civil contempt against the defendant for breaching an interlocutory injunction that prohibited the publication of false or defamatory statements.

The court found the defendant in contempt for publishing defamatory statements on her personal websites and one specific third-party website, concluding that she either published or caused the publication of these statements.

However, the court did not find sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt for other third-party website postings.

The decision outlines the three-part test for civil contempt and provides specific actions the defendant must take to purge the contempt, including deleting defamatory content and requesting removal from third-party sites, prior to a penalty hearing.

The plaintiff mortgage broker, OMJ Mortgage Capital Inc. (OMJ), sued the defendant, King Square Limited (KSL), for commissions on three loans extended by Firm Capital Corporation (FCC).

OMJ claimed commissions on two loans to KSL and one loan to King Square Hotel Corporation (KSHC), arguing they were further advances under an original loan commitment or covered by the holdover period of their commission agreement.

KSL contended the loans were new and outside the agreement's terms, and that it was not liable for a loan to KSHC, a separate entity.

The court found the two loans to KSL were further advances under the original commitment, entitling OMJ to commissions, and that KSL breached its duty of good faith by not disclosing these advances.

However, the court dismissed OMJ's claim for commission on the KSHC loan, finding it was a distinct loan not covered by the agreement's terms or the definition of "Borrower."

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for $1,326,491.18 in unpaid fees for e-commerce services provided to the defendant.

The defendant argued the motion was premature and raised a counterclaim for equitable set-off, alleging the plaintiff induced a related entity to breach an inspection rights agreement.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the defendant failed to put its best foot forward or provide evidence of inducement.

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicants, who are shareholders of a software company, brought an application under the Business Corporations Act to compel the respondent shareholder to comply with a unanimous shareholder agreement.

They sought an order requiring the respondent to sell his shares and to return proprietary source code.

The court found that an unexecuted second shareholder agreement was unenforceable, and therefore there was no basis to force the respondent to sell his shares.

However, interpreting the original executed shareholder agreement, the court held that the source code developed by the respondent was the exclusive property of the corporation.

The application was granted in part, and the respondent was ordered to return the source code.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendants were substantially interfering with a shared right-of-way between their neighbouring properties.

The plaintiff required vehicular access over the right-of-way to satisfy municipal parking requirements for his renovations, but the defendants had built a fence extension and installed concrete slabs blocking access.

The court found that the right-of-way had not been abandoned and that the defendants' structures constituted a substantial interference.

The court ordered the removal of the extension and slabs but dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages and the defendants' counterclaim for property damage.