Sheldon Tenenbaum

Following the dismissal of the applicant's estate claim, the court assessed costs.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, was found to have been driven by spite and animus, which unnecessarily complicated and prolonged the proceedings.

The respondents had made two offers to settle.

Considering the applicant's conduct and the settlement offers, the court awarded the respondents substantial indemnity costs fixed at $60,000.

The applicant sought to set aside transactions that made the respondents joint tenants of her deceased father's home, and to declare his 1995 will invalid, alleging he lacked English comprehension and was subject to undue influence.

The court found the deceased had testamentary capacity, understood English sufficiently to make his will and execute the transfers, and acted free from coercion.

The application was dismissed with costs, and the Certificate of Pending Litigation was dissolved.

This is a costs decision following a trial on child support.

The applicant mother sought costs of $10,802 following her successful trial where the court imputed income to the father and ordered child support.

The respondent father argued for a reduced award of approximately $4,500.

The court awarded total costs of $8,700, comprised of $1,200 for a stayed motion and $7,500 for the trial, payable at $500 per month commencing October 1, 2020.

The court found the mother was the successful party, the father's behaviour was unreasonable including his failure to pay child support pursuant to a temporary support order, and the mother's conduct in making settlement offers demonstrated reasonableness.

The applicant mother sought child support from the respondent father for their three-year-old child.

The mother requested that income be imputed to the father in the amount of $57,699 annually, resulting in table support of $534 per month.

The father claimed to earn only $15,600 annually from part-time work and offered to pay $250 per month based on imputed income of $29,400.

The court found the father's evidence to be lacking in credibility due to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions regarding his employment history, financial situation, and efforts to seek employment.

The court concluded that the father was intentionally underemployed and had the capacity to earn the amount sought by the mother.

The court imputed income of $57,699 to the father and ordered him to pay $534 per month in table support commencing January 1, 2018, with arrears to be paid at $250 per month commencing September 1, 2020.

A default hearing brought by the applicant seeking enforcement of a child support order dated September 21, 2011.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support for two children in the amount of $753.00 per month based on an attributed income of $50,000.00.

The applicant sought arrears fixed by the Family Responsibility Office at $36,712.84 as of November 1, 2016, plus further arrears from December 2016 to June 2018, and legal costs.

The respondent claimed inability to pay due to disability and receipt of ODSP.

The court found the respondent was not credible, had failed to provide full disclosure, and had not met the burden of proving a valid reason for non-payment.

The court fixed arrears at $45,339.00 and ordered immediate payment of $10,000.00 with threat of 60-day incarceration, with a repayment plan to be determined at a subsequent hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding involving custody, child support, and constructive trust claims.

Despite multiple court orders and extensions, the respondent provided incomplete disclosure.

The court reviewed the history of non-compliance but found that, by the time of the motion, the respondent had substantially satisfied his disclosure obligations.

Applying the principle that striking pleadings is a serious remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances, especially where child issues are involved, the court dismissed the applicant's motion, noting that the remaining non-disclosure primarily disadvantaged the respondent.

Costs were to be addressed separately.

Following an 8‑day motion to change relating to support obligations under a prior arbitration award, the court addressed costs.

The responding party on the motion had been successful in obtaining child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses, and sought full indemnity costs exceeding $340,000.

The court found the moving party acted unreasonably and in bad faith by concealing income, misleading his expert, breaching court orders, and rejecting a reasonable offer to settle.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle of proportionality, the court reduced certain disbursements and paralegal rates but concluded that substantial indemnity costs were justified.

Costs of $297,700.65 were awarded, payable in instalments, with a portion enforceable as part of the support order.

The moving party brought a motion to vary prior arbitration awards and a court order governing child and spousal support, alleging a material change in circumstances based on reduced income from restaurant businesses.

The responding party opposed the motion and argued that the payor continued to divert and conceal income through unreported cash transactions and other financial practices.

After extensive expert accounting evidence, the court found the payor’s financial disclosure unreliable and concluded that significant income should continue to be imputed.

The court held that no material change in circumstances had been established and dismissed the motion to vary.

Income of $335,162 was imputed to the payor, resulting in ongoing child support and spousal support obligations along with reimbursement of section 7 expenses.

The defendant was charged with criminal harassment of the building superintendent by watching or besetting at the apartment building between March 3 and March 5, 2013.

The charge arose from the defendant's repeated visits to the building following his eviction for non-payment of rent.

While the evidence established a pattern of disturbing conduct over several months, the court found that the Crown failed to prove the essential element of "watching or besetting" during the specific timeframe alleged in the charge.

The court dismissed the criminal harassment charge but imposed a peace bond given the defendant's persistent conduct and the reasonable fear experienced by the complainant and his wife.