Supriya Joshi

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's family law application pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules for failure to comply with orders for child support and costs totalling $31,606.50.

The court applied the three-part test from Van v. Palombi and found triggering events were established given the father's complete failure to make voluntary child support payments and non-compliance with multiple costs orders.

Rather than striking the application outright, the court imposed a conditional order requiring payment of $35,106.50 (including costs of the motion) by a specified date, failing which the application would be struck and the matter would proceed on an uncontested basis.

The court determined the equalization of net family property following a four-year marriage between Supreet Walia and Ashutosh Walia.

The applicant, Supreet Walia, sought an unequal division, alleging the respondent understated his net family property and hid assets.

The court dismissed claims against the respondent’s parents and their company, focusing solely on the spouses.

After detailed analysis of assets, liabilities, and credibility, the court found Supreet Walia entitled to an equalization payment of $19,098.74, plus pre-judgment interest, rejecting claims for unequal division based on unconscionability or family violence.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted summary judgment in favour of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, placing three children in extended society care due to chronic and long-standing child protection concerns including domestic violence, parental substance abuse, and mental health issues.

The court emphasized the children’s expressed wishes not to return to parental care, the lack of meaningful progress despite years of intervention, and the need for permanency and closure.

The decision carefully applied the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin regarding summary judgment, underscoring the cautious approach required in child protection cases.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order upholding the validity of a marriage contract and denying relief for alleged physical injury and loss of income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to determine the contract's validity on motion, given the appellant's failure to read it and lack of material conflicts in evidence.

The court also upheld the denial of relief for injury, noting no spousal support claim was made and insufficient evidence.

The appellant's request for leave to appeal costs was also dismissed, with the court deferring to the motion judge's discretion on costs, including those for conferences where the appellant was unprepared.

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract, arguing it was invalid due to insufficient disclosure, unconscionability, and duress.

The respondent sought a declaration that the contract was valid and enforceable.

The court found no credible evidence to support the applicant's claims of discrepancies in the contract or duress, attributing alleged issues to photocopying errors.

The court emphasized the applicant's failure to exercise due diligence by not reading the contract and found no exploitation of unequal bargaining power.

The marriage contract was declared valid and enforceable, and the applicant's motion was dismissed, while the respondent's cross-motion was granted.

This trial addressed outstanding issues of retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses, including RESP contributions, following a partial settlement.

The court imputed income to both the Father (Applicant) and the Mother (Respondent) based on their earning capacities and health circumstances.

The Father was found to be intentionally underemployed, and the Mother's unemployment was attributed to health issues, though income was still imputed due to insufficient evidence of complete inability to work or efforts to obtain disability benefits.

The court calculated child support arrears for both parties, resulting in a net payment from the Father to the Mother.

The Father's claim for childcare expenses was dismissed for lack of evidence, while RESP contributions were ordered to be shared equally going forward, with the Father paying arrears to equalize past contributions.

The Respondent Mother brought a motion seeking various orders, including retroactive child support, amendment of parenting orders, and costs.

The parenting issues were resolved, and a contempt motion was not pursued.

The primary issue for the court was the determination of retroactive child support.

The court found that retroactive child support was warranted from March 1, 2018, three years prior to the Mother's Answer, based on the Father's failure to provide timely disclosure and his higher actual income.

The Mother was awarded $31,930 in retroactive child support and $6,000 in costs.

The respondent wife brought a motion under Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules to set aside or stay a default divorce order.

She argued that granting the divorce would prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings in India against the applicant husband regarding dowry harassment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the wife had adequate notice of the divorce proceedings but failed to file an Answer.

Applying the test for setting aside default judgments, the court concluded there was no arguable defence on the merits and insufficient evidence that the divorce would prejudice the foreign criminal litigation.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's financial pleadings for his failure to comply with previous disclosure and costs orders.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting the father had made a good faith effort to provide most of the outstanding disclosure and that less drastic remedies were available for the unpaid costs.

However, the court ordered that the sale of the matrimonial home proceed without the father's consent due to his failure to cooperate with a previous order.

The father was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs for the appearance.

This is a costs decision following the court's dismissal of the applicant's application on jurisdictional grounds.

The respondent sought costs of $4,062.00 on a partial recovery basis, while the applicant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court applied the Family Law Rules framework and found the respondent entitled to costs as the successful party.

However, the court reduced the award to $2,800.00 on a partial recovery basis, finding certain entries in the respondent's bill of costs excessive and not reasonably justified given the narrow nature of the motion.

The court considered the applicant's limited financial means as a factor in determining the amount but did not use it as a shield against liability.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for custody, access, and child support on the grounds that the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over the child.

The applicant and respondent were married in India and had one child born in 2017.

The respondent resided in British Columbia while the applicant resided in India.

After the applicant and child arrived in British Columbia in July 2018, they left for Ontario on July 18, 2018, where the applicant filed her application on September 20, 2018.

The respondent had filed a competing application in British Columbia on August 31, 2018.

The court found that the child was not habitually resident in Ontario under section 22(1)(a) of the Children's Law Reform Act, as the respondent had not consented to or acquiesced in the child's removal to Ontario.

While five of the six criteria under section 22(1)(b) were satisfied, the court found that criterion (iii)—requiring no pending application in another jurisdiction where the child is habitually resident—was not met due to the pending British Columbia application.

Accordingly, the motion was granted and the application was dismissed.