Steven Lahti

This decision addresses whether a religious marriage ceremony (Nikah) performed in Ontario without a marriage licence or registration can be deemed a valid marriage under s. 31 of the Marriage Act, and whether the parties are "spouses" for the purposes of the Family Law Act.

The court finds that the applicant intended to be legally married and relied on the respondent to make the necessary arrangements, satisfying the requirements of s. 31.

The marriage is deemed valid, and both parties are declared spouses entitled to claim equalization of net family property.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to administer medications and treatments to multiple patients, and for falsifying medication administration records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Applying the Anthony-Cook test, the Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a 4-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and imposing conditions including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 15, 2023, and a subsequent costs order dated November 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

Following a family law trial regarding property division and spousal support, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought $40,000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle that was more favourable than the trial outcome.

The court found the applicant beat his offer and was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

However, because the applicant failed to provide a proper bill of costs, the court declined to assess his 29 separate statements of account and instead fixed costs at $30,000, using the respondent's costs as a guide.

The mother sought to relocate with the child from Prince Edward County to Burlington, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence.

The father opposed the relocation and sought shared parenting time, later requesting primary residence for himself.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, finding her plan more child-focused and noting the father's poor communication and uncooperative behaviour.

The relocation was authorized, and a detailed parenting schedule was established.

The parties, who were never married, separated after a 13-year relationship.

The court was asked to determine the allocation of proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned property and the respondent's entitlement to spousal support.

The court found that the property proceeds should be divided equally, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary contributions, and dismissed the respondent's claim for a return of her initial down payment.

The respondent was awarded time-limited spousal support for three years, based on the applicant's income and an imputed income for the respondent, acknowledging their intermingled finances and the applicant being the principal income earner in later years.