Tina Nguyen

The respondent, Teresa Di Nunzio, brought a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario seeking an order for security for costs against the appellant, Lucia Di Nunzio, for both the appeal and the underlying application.

Teresa relied on Rule 61.06(1)(a) and (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and Lucia had insufficient assets, or alternatively, that a novel "lack of mutuality of remedy" constituted "other good reason." The court found that while Lucia lacked sufficient assets, the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious.

The court also rejected the novel "lack of mutuality" argument, stating it was essentially a disparity in financial resources and accepting it would unduly broaden the scope of the rule.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce an email direction from a family arbitrator regarding the choice of private schools for the parties' son.

The respondent father argued the email lacked the formality and clarity to be considered a binding arbitral award.

The court found that the email constituted a clear decision within the arbitrator's mandate and qualified as a secondary arbitration award under the Family Law Act.

The court ordered the award to be enforced and awarded costs to the applicant.