Tilda Malca Roll

The appellant moved for a stay pending appeal of an order directing the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by ordering the sale under the Partition Act when it had not been explicitly pleaded.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any harm would be purely monetary.

The balance of convenience also favoured the respondent, who needed access to the home's equity.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant wife brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from third-party corporate respondents, alleging her husband had an undisclosed ownership interest in them and used them to fund their lifestyle.

The corporate respondents argued they were not bound by a prior disclosure order and that the husband was merely an employee or bare trustee.

The court found the corporate respondents were not in breach of the prior order, as it only applied to the husband.

However, the court ordered the corporate respondents to produce the requested financial and corporate records, finding them highly relevant and necessary to determine the husband's true income and potential ownership interests, subject to the wife signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

The respondent brought a motion seeking costs, emotional hardship damages, and the dismissal of the applicant's requests to enforce family arbitration costs awards.

The court noted the high-conflict nature of the proceedings and the parties' failure to comply with practice directions.

The applicant conceded that the arbitration costs awards were satisfied by a set-off of section 7 expenses.

The court deferred the issue of costs for written submissions and directed a process to resolve ongoing disputes over the applicant's financial disclosure before allowing his Motion to Change to proceed.

The applicant father sought to incorporate a separation agreement into a court order, enforce his parenting time, and clarify/change certain terms.

The respondent mother sought the appointment of a parent coordinator (PC).

The court found the mother had unilaterally breached the separation agreement by imposing unwarranted restrictions and supervision on the father's parenting time.

The court appointed the PC but limited its mandate strictly to the terms agreed upon in the separation agreement, rejecting the mother's attempt to expand the PC's authority.

The court granted police enforcement of the parenting time given the mother's chronic non-compliance.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the jointly held matrimonial home and sought punitive damages.

The applicant alleged fraud and deceit because the respondent did not disclose that the numbered company purchasing the home was owned by the respondent's parents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had executed the agreement, the identity of the purchaser was not a material term, no false statement was made, and the applicant suffered no damages as the offer was unconditional and above the list price.

The respondent sought leave for an urgent motion regarding parenting issues, specifically make-up time, alleging the applicant intermittently withheld their children.

The applicant opposed, providing evidence of the respondent's breaches of agreed-upon COVID-19 social distancing protocols and a unilateral reduction of child support.

The court found that the request for make-up time did not meet the threshold for an urgent or pressing issue, emphasizing the children's best interests and the moving parent's disregard for agreements and children's concerns.

The motion for leave was dismissed, and parties were encouraged to negotiate or mediate a temporary parenting plan and consider a Rule 15 Motion to Change.

This costs endorsement followed a successful summary judgment motion brought by Ms. Tassone, dismissing Mr. Tozer's application to set aside a Separation Agreement.

Ms. Tassone sought full indemnity costs of $40,203.68.

The court found Mr. Tozer acted in bad faith and that Ms. Tassone was entitled to costs on a full recovery basis from the date of her offer to settle.

However, the court found Ms. Tassone's claimed costs excessive and unreasonable due to lack of particularization, undated items, and excessive charges.

The court fixed costs at $20,000 inclusive, to be paid by Mr. Tozer.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a separation agreement, under which the applicant owed her a balance of over $3.1 million.

The applicant sought to set aside the agreement, alleging material non-disclosure of the respondent's business assets and development projects.

The court found no evidence of material non-disclosure, noting the applicant had a general awareness of the assets and had failed to disclose the full value of his own assets prior to mediation.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent and dismissed the applicant's motion to consolidate proceedings.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order made at a Trial Management Conference that imposed conditions, including costs for a supplementary report, on the late filing of his expert report.

The applicant had breached a previous order setting deadlines for expert reports.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the procedural order, which was within the motion judge's jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision by Snowie J. which imposed orders due to the applicant's late expert report.

The original decision imposed conditions for filing the late report, including costs and potential trial adjournment.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness, exceeding jurisdiction, and mischaracterization of costs as interim disbursements.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no procedural unfairness or bias.

The court clarified that the costs ordered were for "costs thrown away" due to non-compliance, not interim disbursements, and that Snowie J. acted within her authority under the Family Law Rules.

The appellant appealed the summary judgment dismissal of her motion to change a consent final order that terminated spousal support.

She argued the motions judge erred in ruling third-party letters inadmissible, placing the onus on her to adduce expert evidence, finding the claim statute-barred under s. 17(10) of the Divorce Act, and failing to accord procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the medical evidence was admitted, it did not establish that the alleged worsening of her medical condition was related to the marriage as required by s. 17(10).

The moving party father brought a motion to find the responding party mother in contempt of a 2011 British Columbia consent order regarding access and Skype communication with their child.

At the hearing, the court first recognized the BC order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, holding that the mother could not be found in contempt in Ontario for conduct that occurred before the BC order was recognized as an Ontario order.

Furthermore, the court found that even if jurisdiction existed, the father failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order, as her actions regarding missed access and Skype calls were either misunderstandings or taken in the child's best interests.

Costs decision following a civil action concerning an alleged unpaid loan.

The plaintiff claimed $60,000 in outstanding debt but was awarded only $3,000 at trial, while the defendant was found to be the primarily successful party.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs relying on authority that such costs may be appropriate where allegations of dishonesty or fraud are unproven.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting the unseemly nature of the underlying transaction and deficiencies in the evidence from both sides.

Costs were instead awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $10,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the interpretation of a divorce judgment and the applicable interest rate.

The divorce judgment entitled the respondent to a share of the appellant's pension benefits when he received them.

The appellant argued he did not receive the benefits until he began receiving monthly annuity payments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant received his benefits when he retired early and transferred the funds into a locked-in RRSP, as he had control over them at that time.

The Court also upheld the 10% interest rate specified in the divorce judgment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings due to a long history of delay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting there was no material to support any other conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.