Steven J. Greenberg

The applicant husband sought a determination of urgency for his proposed motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a restraining order against the respondent wife, alleging chronic alcoholism and verbal abuse.

The respondent opposed the urgency but indicated a desire to seek urgent spousal support if the applicant's motion proceeded.

The court found the applicant's motion urgent based on evidence including an abusive recording and a police report, noting high conflict in the home.

The court urged the parties to pursue out-of-court settlement and suggested a private voice of the child report.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully responding to the defendants' unsuccessful motion for summary judgment.

The defendants argued for partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The court found that while the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing their motion, the plaintiff's own evidence had deficiencies and they abandoned their request for summary judgment in their favour.

Consequently, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $21,966.36, after adjusting hourly rates, percentages, and disallowing certain disbursements.

No costs were awarded for the costs submissions due to deficiencies in both parties' filings.

The defendants, Sarazen Realty Inc., Colin Sarazen, and Keith Sennett, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Gerald McClelland's action for commission payment, unjust enrichment, and negligence related to a property sale.

The court found that McClelland's claims raised genuine issues requiring a trial, citing significant deficiencies and credibility issues in the defendants' affidavit evidence, including reliance on opinion evidence, hearsay, and improper "adoption" of evidence.

The court determined that these issues could not be resolved through the enhanced powers of summary judgment or a mini-trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendants, Marcel and Jean-Georges Bisson, in civil contempt for deliberately refusing to sign Full and Final Releases as ordered by a previous judgment.

Applying the three-part test from Carey v. Laiken, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, the defendants had actual knowledge of it, and they intentionally failed to comply.

The defendants were found in contempt, fined $20,000, and the releases were deemed signed by court order.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking reinstatement of access to the parties’ two children after the respondent father unilaterally terminated the existing alternating-week parenting schedule following service of the application for custody and support.

The court found that the prior arrangement, which had operated for approximately 15 months, constituted the status quo and that no compelling reasons had been established to justify altering it.

The father’s unilateral restriction of the mother’s access was found to stem from an erroneous belief that he could control the children’s access and from a reaction to the litigation.

Applying principles from interim custody jurisprudence, the court held that compelling reasons are required to disturb the status quo on an interim motion and that shared parenting should be encouraged where feasible.

Access was therefore reinstated gradually, returning the parties to the previous alternating week schedule.

A parenting dispute concerning custody, access, child support, and a restraining order under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court assessed the best interests of the child, including stability, the child’s relationship with each parent, and the caregiving environment provided by the maternal grandparents.

Sole custody was granted to the mother to preserve stability in decision‑making, while the father received structured parenting time to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child and his half‑siblings.

The court declined to impute the higher income sought by the mother, instead imputing minimum‑wage income for child support purposes.

A restraining order limiting contact between the parents was granted, largely to reduce conflict and support the parenting arrangement.

Following a nine‑day trial in which the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed, the defendants and the third party sought costs.

The defendants requested substantial indemnity costs based largely on allegations of fraud advanced against them and an unaccepted settlement offer made in related litigation.

The court held that the offer made in the separate main action was irrelevant to the costs of the present case and declined to award recovery of unrecovered costs from that action.

However, because the plaintiffs advanced serious allegations akin to fraud that were ultimately unfounded, the court awarded the defendants solicitor‑and‑client scale costs.

The third party was awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of her offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, reflecting that her offer was more favourable than the result obtained at trial.

The plaintiffs purchased a commercial plaza that was contaminated with PCE from a former dry cleaning business.

They sued the vendor for fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging the vendor concealed environmental reports showing the contamination.

They also sued their real estate lawyer for professional negligence, alleging she failed to obtain the reports or properly advise them regarding the environmental condition.

The court dismissed the action against all defendants.

The court found as a fact that the vendor had provided the environmental reports to the purchaser before the environmental condition was waived.

The court also found that the lawyer met the standard of care, as the purchaser had taken responsibility for satisfying the environmental condition and had instructed her to waive it after receiving the reports.

The court determined costs following the dismissal of a respondent’s motion seeking an order that funds be paid into court pending determination of his claim.

Although the applicant was successful on the motion and sought approximately $17,000 in costs, the court found that her conduct regarding disclosure contributed to the procedural complications and delays.

The court noted that significant disclosure should have been provided voluntarily and that the applicant had incorrectly denied receiving certain disclosure.

Considering the circumstances, the court declined to award full indemnity costs and fixed costs at $6,000 to the applicant and $500 to her mother.

The court also cautioned counsel that written submissions must always be shared with opposing counsel.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order requiring the applicant and an added party (the applicant’s mother) to pay into court the net proceeds from the sale of a property alleged to be a former matrimonial home.

The moving party claimed a trust interest and alleged cash contributions toward renovations, asserting unjust enrichment and seeking preservation of funds pending determination of property claims.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including financial disclosure and the moving party’s inconsistent affidavits regarding the alleged cash contributions.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish a prima facie case for unjust enrichment or to justify a mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring payment of funds into court.

While a triable issue remained as to whether the property may have been a matrimonial home, the motion was dismissed, subject to continuing an order restraining depletion of the applicant’s property under s. 12(a) of the Family Law Act.