Steven J. Greenberg

Family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization following the breakdown of a short marriage.

The respondent claimed a beneficial interest in a residential property held in the applicant’s name pursuant to a declaration of trust for her mother and alleged the property constituted a matrimonial home or, alternatively, that he was entitled to compensation through unjust enrichment.

The court rejected both arguments, finding the property was an investment owned beneficially by the applicant’s mother and never occupied as a matrimonial home.

The respondent failed to prove financial contributions sufficient to establish deprivation for unjust enrichment.

Sole custody of the child was granted to the applicant with supervised access to the respondent and guideline child support based on the respondent’s income.

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.

The respondent father brought a motion to change existing custody, access, and child support orders regarding his five children, who were in the legal custody of their maternal grandparents.

He sought custody of one child, unsupervised access to three younger children, and a reduction or elimination of child support arrears, arguing a material change in circumstances as he was studying medicine abroad.

The court found no material change regarding child support, as the father remained intentionally underemployed, and maintained the arrears.

Custody of the older child was reserved pending a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and access to the younger children was ordered to remain supervised.

The father was also prohibited from bringing further child support proceedings until he paid outstanding costs awards.

The parties separated after a high-conflict relationship and sought a determination on child custody, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to another municipality, while the respondent father sought joint custody and to maintain the child in a French immersion school.

The court found that joint custody was inappropriate due to the parents' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, permitted the relocation as it was in the child's best interests, and ordered the child to be transferred to an English school.

The court also calculated the net family property and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $43,245.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages and costs to the respondents for breach of a contract to purchase bakery equipment.

The trial judge found the appellants waived conditions in the offer to purchase by signing a lease, did not repudiate the offer, and that the individual appellant was personally liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or mixed fact and law.

The court also upheld the costs award, finding it was within the trial judge's discretion and not disproportionate.

The appellants appealed their convictions, arguing they were denied a fair hearing before the appeal court judge.

At the lower appeal hearing, the appellants requested an adjournment due to late service of the respondent's factum.

The judge asked counsel to explain the case to determine if an adjournment was warranted, but then proceeded to dismiss the appeal without ruling on the adjournment or inviting submissions on the merits.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the process lacked the appearance of a fair hearing because counsel were not given the opportunity to make submissions on the merits.

The decision was set aside and a new hearing was ordered before a different judge.

The respondents, unionized employees, brought a tort action against their employer and a fellow employee alleging sexual harassment and sexual assault.

The employer moved to dismiss the action, arguing the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the collective agreement's arbitration procedure.

The motion judge struck the sexual harassment claims but allowed the sexual assault claims to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the essential character of the dispute was a workplace dispute regarding the employer's failure to provide a safe working environment.

Applying the Weber principle, the Court concluded that the arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over the entire dispute, including the allegations of sexual assault and the claims against the fellow employee.

The appeal was allowed and the statement of claim was struck out.

The appellant appealed an award made by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that it was open to the trial judge to make the findings she did and that there was no basis to interfere with the award.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $1,000.

The appellant, a lawyer, was convicted of fraud after acting as a solicitor in transactions that defrauded banks.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable, and his sentence, arguing he should have received a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding ample evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's own acts and declarations proved him guilty as a party to the frauds.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in principle in imposing a custodial sentence.

The appellants sued a customs officer and the Attorney General of Canada for damages arising from the allegedly wrongful seizure and storage of several aircraft.

The respondents successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was barred by the three-month limitation period in s. 106(1) of the Customs Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appellants' allegations that the customs officer acted with malice and intent to injure raised a genuine issue for trial as to whether the limitation periods under the Customs Act and the Public Authorities Protection Act applied.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside, except with respect to the Charter claims.