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 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 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.

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.