Self-represented

This decision addresses two issues: (1) the use of artificial intelligence in legal submissions, specifically the submission of facta containing non-existent or misrepresented case law, and (2) the merits of a motion concerning the administration of the estate of Xiang Guo Li, including the setting aside of a divorce order, estate trustee issues, and the rights of competing spouses.

The court set aside the divorce order for fraud and duress, ordered disclosure and administration steps for the estate, and required the applicant's counsel to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt for submitting false authorities.

The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendants’ Statement of Defence due to repeated non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and court orders, including failure to serve affidavits of documents and notices of intention to act in person after their counsel was removed.

The court reviewed the relevant rules and case law, found the defendants’ non-compliance clear and material, and granted the motion to strike the defence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by the moving party, M.H., to adjourn and stay the appeal of O.K. until O.K. paid support arrears and security for costs.

The court found that O.K. was required to pay support for January to March 2025 and had not done so, and that he had no assets in Ontario and a history of failing to meet support obligations.

The court ordered the appeal stayed until O.K. paid $24,396 in support arrears and $35,000 as security for costs, with the appeal to be administratively dismissed if payment was not made by June 6, 2025.

The court also awarded M.H. $3,200 in costs for the motion.

The court considered an urgent motion regarding the interim primary residence of a 12-year-old child, M, following allegations of abuse and emotional harm.

After reviewing evidence from the Children’s Aid Society, school officials, and a Voice of the Child report, the court found it in M’s best interests to reside primarily with the respondent, Kory Guenette, in Verner, Ontario.

The decision details the history of the parties’ relationship, the child’s expressed wishes, and the relevant legal framework for determining best interests in parenting disputes.

The court addresses a family law dispute between Chadia Abou-Assaly and Mounir El-Saikali, involving issues of decision-making responsibility, child support, equalization of net family property, and resulting trust claims over two properties.

The court finds that the applicant is entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in both the Foxden and Forestglade properties by way of resulting trust, sets the date of separation as August 13, 2019, and orders child support and arrears based on imputed income.

The court also addresses the respondent's self-represented status, disclosure failures, and the need for further proceedings to finalize equalization and support calculations.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Aliamisse O. Mundulai’s motion for a panel review of a decision denying his request for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had dismissed his application for judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision denying his readmission to the Ontario Bar.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s decision, noting the lack of merit in the proposed appeal and emphasizing that leave to appeal was required.

The application was dismissed and costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The court dismissed Dana Proctor’s action against Penske Truck Leasing as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, arising from a truck rental dispute, included wide-ranging and implausible allegations and relief, including conspiracy, electronic harassment, and requests for judicial review of Alberta court decisions.

The court found the action lacked legal merit, repeated issues from prior proceedings, and was marred by irrelevant and repetitive content.

The court interprets Article 7 of Floyd Kersey’s will, determining the proper distribution of his Canadian property where a named beneficiary predeceased him.

The court finds that the testator intended a per stirpes distribution, so that the share of a predeceased beneficiary passes to their issue, rather than lapsing or being distributed per capita among surviving named beneficiaries.

The application was unopposed and the applicant was awarded full indemnity costs from the estate, with a portion of costs personally payable by a respondent who evaded service.

The court considered a motion by Luis Alejandro Correa Rucci to vary the conditions of his bankruptcy discharge order.

The motion was dismissed because it was brought before the expiry of the one-year waiting period required by section 172(3) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court clarified the distinction between the powers to vary under sections 172(3) and 187(5) of the Act, and set out the requirements for future motions to vary a conditional discharge.

This decision concerns an uncontested family law trial in which the applicant mother, Narjes Ebrahimi, sought a divorce, a parenting order, and retroactive and ongoing child support based on an imputed income for the respondent father, Mohammad Ali Muradi, who has been absent since 2016.

The court granted a final parenting order in the best interests of the child, C.M., and a divorce, but denied the request for child support due to lack of evidence regarding the father's income or whereabouts.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, whose license to practice law was previously revoked for professional misconduct, commenced a new action against the Law Society of Ontario and its counsel, alleging malfeasance in public office.

The court found that the action was a continuation of previously litigated issues and exhibited hallmarks of vexatious litigation, including repeated attempts to re-litigate matters already decided and naming opposing counsel as defendants.

The court also held that the defendants’ conduct was protected by absolute privilege.

The decision addresses a motion for contempt brought by the respondent father, who alleged that the applicant mother breached an interim parenting order by withholding their daughter.

The court reviews the history of the parties' relationship, the child's experiences, and the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court finds no evidence of alienation by the mother and concludes that the child's estrangement from the father is not due to the mother's conduct.

The contempt motion is dismissed.

The court also considers whether there has been a material change in circumstances justifying a variation of the interim order and ultimately orders that the father's parenting time remain professionally supervised, with the option of reunification therapy.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The applicant, Melissa Hart, sought to reopen her application for leave to appeal a conviction for driving with a blood alcohol content over 80mg per 100ml.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed her application, finding that the Charter arguments and evidence she sought to introduce were neither fresh nor novel, as they had already been considered in previous proceedings.

The court held that there was no merit to the application and declined to consider its jurisdiction to reopen a decision not to reopen a dismissal of a leave to appeal application.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The court dismissed Milad Babadi’s motion for judicial recusal and related relief as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The decision reviews the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, the proper remedy of appeal, and the hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

The court found Mr. Babadi’s conduct and submissions to be a textbook example of vexatious litigation and stayed his motion, prohibiting further motions without leave.

The court dismissed Milad Babadi’s motion for judicial recusal and related relief as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The decision reviews the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, the proper remedy of appeal, and the hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

The court found Mr. Babadi’s conduct and submissions to be a textbook example of vexatious litigation and stayed his motion, prohibiting further motions without leave.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Manpreet Dhaliwal’s appeal from the trial decision and costs order in her family and civil actions against Hardeep Singh Nijher and his family.

The court found no legal or factual errors in the trial judge’s findings regarding property equalization, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress.

The trial judge’s credibility findings against the appellant were upheld, and the court found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The court considered a motion by the mother to relocate with the parties’ two children to New Brunswick for her continuing education, and for sole decision-making responsibility.

The father opposed the relocation and sought joint decision-making and continued parenting time.

The court reviewed the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act, the history of parenting, the impact of relocation, and the reasonableness of the mother’s proposal.

The court denied the mother’s application to relocate, finding the plan would sever the children’s relationship with their father and was not fully developed.

The court ordered the parties to continue with the interim parenting schedule until August 1, 2025, after which the father must exercise parenting time outside the mother’s home, and directed the parties to meet with a mediator to develop a new schedule.