Sathishkumar Balasunderam

This decision resolves the financial issues arising from the separation of Jamilla Jaha and Mabruck Mengele, including the imputation of income, calculation of child and spousal support, and equalization of property.

The court found that the applicant, Ms. Jaha, was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to her accordingly.

The court dismissed her motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and declined to revisit settled parenting and equalization issues.

The court also set out detailed calculations for support arrears and provided for a review of spousal support in three years, in anticipation of the respondent’s retirement.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order and a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,443.75.

The defendants brought a motion under Ontario's Anti-SLAPP legislation to dismiss a defamation action initiated by the plaintiffs.

The action stemmed from "vicious" online reviews posted by the defendants about the plaintiffs' plumbing business and its principal.

The court determined that the online reviews constituted "expression" on a "matter of public interest." While the plaintiffs' defamation claim was found to have substantial merit and no valid defence, the court ultimately dismissed the action.

It concluded that the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiffs did not outweigh the significant public interest in protecting freedom of expression, even when the expression was offensive and vitriolic.

The court also clarified that the plaintiffs had not properly pleaded the tort of intentional interference with economic relations.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for the appointment of an assessor and costs of the assessment pursuant to section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The parties are parents of a nine-year-old child with diagnosed ADHD and Adjustment Disorder.

The applicant argued that a section 30 assessment was necessary because the prior Office of the Children's Lawyer report did not include direct communication with the child's psychiatrist.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the OCL report was comprehensive and that subjecting the child to another assessment would not be in the child's best interests.

The court denied the motion, finding that the OCL report adequately addressed the child's clinical needs and that the applicant's true objective appeared to be obtaining a report favourable to her position.

This costs endorsement followed motions for productions and undertakings where both parties were partially successful and partially unsuccessful.

The court declined to award costs, finding that neither side was truly successful and both had been unreasonable in bringing the motions without prior attempts to resolve production issues.

The court emphasized that such conduct should not be rewarded.