Self-represented

The defendant, Wolf Schroeder, requested dismissal of the plaintiff’s action under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court declined to dismiss, finding the claim was not clearly abusive or frivolous on its face and that rule 2.1 is reserved for only the clearest cases.

The court emphasized that the proper response to a potentially improper claim is through regular pleadings or summary judgment motions, not the exceptional rule 2.1 process.

This decision addresses a motion to change child support and related orders for two adult children, DY and CZ.

The court finds that DY, despite being over 18 and not attending school full-time, remains a "child of the marriage" due to significant mental health challenges.

The court orders continued support and sets out a detailed framework for the release of RESP funds and the sharing of post-secondary and section 7 expenses.

The decision also addresses the parties' ongoing disclosure issues, the need for mediation before further litigation, and the cessation of child support for CZ upon completion of her first degree.

The court considered whether the applicant’s notice of application was frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The registrar was directed to give notice to the applicant that the court is considering dismissing the action, and the application was stayed pending the outcome of a written hearing.

The applicant was given an opportunity to make submissions as to why the application should not be dismissed.

This decision addresses a motion to change child support and related orders for two adult children, DY and CZ.

The court finds that DY, despite being over 18 and not attending school full-time, remains a "child of the marriage" due to significant mental health challenges.

The court orders continued support and sets out a detailed framework for the release of RESP funds and the sharing of post-secondary and section 7 expenses.

The decision also addresses the parties' ongoing disclosure issues, the need for mediation before further litigation, and the cessation of child support for CZ upon completion of her first degree.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a motion regarding parenting time and compliance with a Swiss court order.

The court apportions costs between the parties, considering divided success on the motion, the reasonableness and proportionality of legal fees, and the conduct of the parties and their counsel.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the Family Law Rules as they pertain to costs, including the impact of offers to settle, divided success, and the behaviour of the parties.

The applicant, Melissa Hart, sought to re-open her application for leave to appeal a 2015 summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit.

This was her third such application, each raising similar Charter arguments previously dismissed by the courts.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no material change in circumstances and dismissed the application as entirely without merit.

The court further prohibited Ms. Hart from filing any further documents regarding her 2015 conviction without written permission from a judge of the court.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim against his physician for alleged negligent failure to report him to the Ministry of Transportation under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found the claim lacked expert evidence, was frivolous and without legal merit, and was not statute-barred.

The court declined to award costs against the self-represented plaintiff.

This endorsement addresses a motion regarding the treatment of the parties’ Mahr (Islamic marriage contract) in the context of Ontario’s family property law regime.

The court considers whether the Mahr should be included in the net family property (NFP) calculation, the parties’ pleadings and standing, and issues of fairness.

The court rules that the Mahr is to be included as both a date of marriage and valuation date asset and debt in the NFP calculation, finding no valid withdrawal or agreement to exclude it.

The decision also addresses the parties’ ability to raise unconscionability under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act at a later stage.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a motion without notice brought by the respondent seeking urgent orders regarding the primary residence and parenting time of the parties' child following the applicant's unilateral relocation.

The court found that the respondent did not establish the necessary urgency or grounds to proceed without notice for changing the child's primary residence or relocation.

However, due to serious allegations concerning the applicant's partner's criminal charges, the court granted a limited without-prejudice order restricting the child's contact with the named individuals pending further investigation.

The court emphasized the need for involvement of the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and proper jurisdictional considerations for the ongoing matter.

This decision concerns the costs award following a 54-day family law trial.

The applicant, J.M.M., sought costs after being successful on all major issues, including parenting, child support, spousal support, and property.

The court awarded $150,000 in costs (inclusive of disbursements and HST), finding this amount fair and proportionate given the applicant’s success, the respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct, and the respondent’s significant mental health and financial challenges.

The court structured payment terms to reflect the respondent’s limited means and designated a portion of the award as support, enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court determined the equalization of net family property following a four-year marriage between Supreet Walia and Ashutosh Walia.

The applicant, Supreet Walia, sought an unequal division, alleging the respondent understated his net family property and hid assets.

The court dismissed claims against the respondent’s parents and their company, focusing solely on the spouses.

After detailed analysis of assets, liabilities, and credibility, the court found Supreet Walia entitled to an equalization payment of $19,098.74, plus pre-judgment interest, rejecting claims for unequal division based on unconscionability or family violence.

This decision concerns a family law trial between Juana Gonzalez (the applicant, "Mother") and Cesar Astorga Bello (the respondent, "Father") regarding a restraining order, child and spousal support, and related financial issues.

The court found a history of family violence and coercive control by the Father, and granted a final restraining order in favour of the Mother.

The court imputed a modest income to the Father based on regular gifts received, found no entitlement to spousal support, and determined that the Father's income was too low to require child support payments.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff, Robert Barlow, brought a motion for default judgment against his former employer, 6HARMONICS INC., for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.

The defendant failed to defend the proceeding and was noted in default.

The court found that the employment agreement entitled the plaintiff to nine months’ pay in lieu of notice, and the defendant had only paid two weeks’ pay.

The court awarded the plaintiff $184,166.69 in damages, partial indemnity costs, and pre-judgment interest.

Claims for additional damages for mental distress were rejected due to lack of evidence.

The court addresses a high-conflict family law dispute between former spouses regarding the division of proceeds from the sale of their matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and costs.

The respondent repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders, resulting in significant delays and additional costs for the applicant.

The court ultimately orders that neither party owes the other an equalization payment, dismisses the applicant's claim for an unequal division of property, but grants her reimbursement for post-separation expenses, writs, and costs, all payable from the respondent's share of the sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs, grandchildren of the deceased Mary Jane Hockney, brought an action against Mary Jane Kneeland, the estate trustee, for failing to distribute estate funds and for breaches of trust, fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The court found Kneeland, a lawyer, liable in both her personal and trustee capacities, noting her egregious and intentional misconduct.

The court awarded the plaintiffs the outstanding estate funds, aggravated damages for distress, and prejudgment interest, and left open the possibility for further claims if substantiated.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for forfeiture of $32,000 in Canadian currency seized from Nosakhare Ohenhen.

The court found that the funds were proceeds of and an instrument of unlawful activity, rejecting Ohenhen’s explanations regarding the source of the funds.

The court also addressed procedural issues, including the admissibility of evidence and the use of fictitious case citations by the respondent.

The application for forfeiture was granted.

The court considered a motion by the defendants to dismiss or stay the plaintiff’s action due to her failure to pay a prior costs order.

The court reviewed the procedural history, including the plaintiff’s repeated abusive conduct, failure to comply with court orders, and unsuccessful motions in this and other proceedings.

The court stayed the action, giving the plaintiff a final opportunity to pay the outstanding costs, failing which her action would be dismissed without further notice.

This decision concerns an interjurisdictional support variation application under the Divorce Act.

The applicant, James Longmire, sought to terminate his Ontario child support order and rescind arrears, arguing that his daughter K.S. had been living with him in Nova Scotia since 2019.

The court found that K.S. ceased to be a dependent child as of April 19, 2023, and terminated James’s child support obligation from that date.

However, the court dismissed James’s request to rescind arrears, finding insufficient evidence of hardship and that the legal framework for rescission was not met.

This decision concerns an interjurisdictional support variation application under the Divorce Act.

The applicant, James Longmire, sought to terminate his Ontario child support order and rescind arrears, arguing that his daughter K.S. had been living with him in Nova Scotia since 2019.

The court found that K.S. ceased to be a dependent child as of April 19, 2023, and terminated James’s child support obligation from that date.

However, the court dismissed James’s request to rescind arrears, finding insufficient evidence of hardship and that the legal framework for rescission was not met.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting, child and spousal support, equalization, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, life insurance, and costs.

The court found the respondent's behaviour troubling, imputed income for child support, granted arrears and retroactive support, and ordered exclusive possession of the home and life insurance.

The applicant was also granted the right to seek spousal support in the future, and the respondent was ordered to pay an equalization amount.

Payment of certain amounts was deferred until the sale of the home.