Sofia Ashraf

The Applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitral decision concerning the enrollment of their child in an Early French Immersion program.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Applicant failed to establish any errors of law by the Arbitrator as required under section 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court clarified the distinction between errors of law and errors of mixed fact and law, emphasizing that questions of weight or factual findings do not constitute errors of law.

The court also declined to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction, noting it is reserved for situations of necessity, danger, or legislative gaps, which were not present in this case.

The respondent father, M.P., brought a motion to set aside a 2015 default order for child support, arguing he was not adequately notified of the hearing and citing mental distress.

He also contended he should not be considered a parent due to the circumstances of conception (he was 13, the applicant mother, A.J., was 16).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that M.P. did not bring the motion promptly, his explanation for default was unsatisfactory, and his argument regarding parentage lacked legal basis and was outside the Ontario Court of Justice's jurisdiction.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt for repeatedly breaching a final order regarding his overnight parenting time.

The court found that the mother intentionally breached clear and unequivocal terms of the order on multiple occasions, often requiring the father to resort to police enforcement.

Given the mother's pattern of disregarding court orders and resorting to self-help measures, the court declined to exercise its discretion against a contempt finding, concluding it was in the child's best interests.

The mother was found in contempt, and the matter was adjourned for a penalty hearing.

The moving party father sought to set aside a final order made at an undefended trial pursuant to Family Law Rule 25(19)(e).

The underlying order granted the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility, child support based on imputed income, and an equalization payment.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment.

The court found the father's delay in bringing the motion concerning, his explanation for default implausible, and that he failed to raise an arguable defence on the merits regarding equalization or imputed income.

The motion was dismissed, though the father was granted leave to file an Answer solely regarding parenting time.

The respondent husband sought costs following a trial on equalization where the applicant wife did not appear.

The husband claimed over $140,000 on a full indemnity basis, arguing the wife's conduct amounted to bad faith due to repeated delays, late adjournments, and failure to provide contact information.

The court agreed the wife's conduct was unreasonable and in bad faith, justifying full indemnity costs.

However, noting concerns about proportionality given the husband's share of the house proceeds was only approximately $115,000, the court fixed costs at $55,000 payable forthwith.