Steven Bookman

The applicant sought to register a default judgment of $448,459.15 USD obtained in the Superior Court of California against the respondent.

The respondent did not file a Notice of Appearance or defend the application.

The court found a real and substantial connection between the dispute and California, as the respondent had solicited business and entered into agreements there.

Finding no defences of fraud, public policy, or lack of natural justice applicable, the court granted the order to enforce the foreign judgment.

The respondent in a family law proceeding requested a transcript of select portions of prior Zoom hearings.

The Recording Management Office had no official recording and asked the motions judge if his personal recording could be released.

The judge declined the request, noting that under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction, digital recordings of family motions are not available unless a judge orders otherwise.

The judge found no reason to exercise his discretion to release the recording, as the issue in question had already been addressed through written submissions and a subsequent hearing.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking a sealing order for an affidavit and to exclude certain evidence allegedly obtained improperly by the defendants.

The court dismissed the cross-motion for a sealing order, finding the plaintiff did not meet the Sherman Estate test.

On the security for costs motion, the court found the defendants met their initial onus of showing good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient assets.

The plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in the amount of $105,000 on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Following a decision dismissing the applicant's motion and granting the respondent's cross-motion, a dispute arose regarding the timeline for final submissions and the immediate release of trust funds.

The court held a case conference and ordered the immediate termination of child support, which had been found to have ended in 2018, and the immediate release of funds held in trust to the respondent.

The deadline for final submissions on the remaining issues was extended.