Sean Lakhan

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim, which sought damages for trespass, nuisance, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and harassment arising from a neighbour dispute.

The court struck the novel claim for harassment without leave to amend, finding no realistic prospect that such a tort would be recognized in this context.

The court also struck a claim for damages related to a hypothetical future move as frivolous.

However, the court declined to strike the entirety of the claims for trespass, nuisance, and intentional infliction of mental suffering, finding it was not plain and obvious that they would fail, particularly given the suspension of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion was granted in part.

This case involved an undefended trial of the applicant's motion to change a final order and a motion to relocate with the children.

The court found a material change in circumstances, primarily due to the children's increased age, the respondent's employment changes, and his inconsistent exercise of parenting time.

The applicant was granted leave to relocate with the children from Mississauga to Cambridge, retroactively.

The court adjusted the respondent's parenting time and imputed income to him for child support purposes, ordering significant arrears and ongoing monthly support.

The applicant's request for a vesting order against the respondent's home to secure support obligations was denied, as the respondent's conduct was not deemed extreme enough to warrant such an intrusive enforcement mechanism.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the immediate sale of two jointly owned properties, including the matrimonial home where the applicant mother resided with their children, and an investment condominium.

The father cited severe financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which drastically reduced his income as an optometrist.

The mother opposed the sale, arguing no urgency, potential homelessness for the children, and questioning the father's financial claims.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that economic necessity required the sale of both properties to alleviate debt and free up equity, and that the mother failed to establish sufficient legal reason or prejudice to prevent the sale.

The court emphasized the need for parties to face financial realities, especially during the pandemic, and to move towards an efficient resolution.