Selin Hankali

The defendants moved under Rule 56.01 for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs on the grounds that the plaintiff is not ordinarily resident in Ontario and has insufficient assets within the jurisdiction to satisfy a potential adverse costs award.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's claim is plainly without merit.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants' conduct forced him to leave Ontario, that he has personal property in the jurisdiction, and that the defendants improperly delayed in bringing the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a holistic consideration of all circumstances rendered an order for security unjust, particularly given the substantial delay in bringing the motion, the defendants' failure to offer reasonable explanation for the delay, the plaintiff's particularized evidence regarding the merits of the claim, and evidence that the defendants' conduct contributed to the plaintiff's departure from Ontario.

This family law trial concerned the equalization of net family property after the parties had resolved child and spousal support.

The remaining issues were the respondent's claimed date of marriage deduction for a property (the Ailsa property) and whether a $6,000 settlement received by the applicant should be included in her net family property.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for a date of marriage deduction, finding he failed to discharge his onus of proof with reliable evidence regarding beneficial ownership or value.

The court also found that the applicant's settlement funds were used to repay a loan from her parents and should not be included as an asset.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant an equalization payment of $41,711.99, with a portion to be paid from funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking sole control over the sale of the matrimonial home, which had been previously ordered sold.

The court found that the respondent mother was delaying the sale in an attempt to acquire the home herself.

The motion was granted, giving the father sole authority to negotiate and close the sale, dispensing with the mother's consent, though requiring him to keep her apprised of offers.

A separate request by the father for the mother to remove online reviews about his counsel was dismissed as being outside the scope of the case.

The father was provisionally awarded costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, seeking to impute income to the respondent father.

The father had unilaterally reduced his child support payments multiple times post-separation and provided insufficient evidence of his current income or inability to work overtime.

The court imputed the father's income at $97,000 under s. 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered him to pay table child support and mid-range spousal support based on that amount.

The mother's request for contribution to childcare expenses was dismissed as she was working minimal hours.

The matter was transferred to London on consent.

The appellant mother brought a motion to stay a final custody order pending appeal.

The trial judge had changed the child's primary residence to the respondent father due to the child's poor school attendance while in the mother's care.

The Divisional Court reviewed the test for a stay pending appeal, noting conflicting jurisprudence on the 'serious issue' threshold, but ultimately dismissed the motion.

The court found that while the appeal raised a serious issue, the mother failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, emphasizing that the child's best interests were served by continuing to attend school from the father's residence.

The claimant sought $45,670.50 in child support arrears from the estate of her late ex-husband, dating back to a 1978 decree nisi.

The estate trustee contested the claim, arguing it was uncorroborated under s. 13 of the Evidence Act and partially statute-barred.

The court found the claimant's evidence of non-payment was corroborated by her current husband.

However, arrears accruing prior to January 1, 1984, were statute-barred under the former Limitations Act, and the doctrine of special circumstances did not apply to extend the period.

Applying the DiFrancesco factors, the court ordered the estate to pay the enforceable arrears of $20,275.