Todd C. Hein

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders regarding decision-making responsibility for the parties' twin children.

While most issues were settled, the parties disputed decision-making for the children's religion and spirituality.

The mother sought sole decision-making to allow the children to participate in Catholic sacraments, including First Communion, while the father objected based on unparticularized concerns about the Catholic faith.

The court granted the mother temporary sole decision-making responsibility for religion and spirituality, finding it in the children's best interests to maintain the status quo of their religious upbringing and participate fully in their faith.

The father appealed a final family arbitration award that resolved parenting, child support, spousal support, and property issues.

He alleged procedural unfairness, bias, and errors in the arbitrator's parenting and financial decisions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court held that the arbitrator's decisions, including imputing income due to the father's non-disclosure and awarding primary residence to the mother, were amply supported by the evidence and entitled to significant deference.

The respondent father brought a motion for the immediate pre-trial sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant mother opposed the sale and sought an order for the father to cooperate in renewing the mortgage, arguing that their 19-year-old child with autism and intellectual disabilities required the stability of the home and its proximity to specialized school programs.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that a pre-trial sale would irreparably prejudice the mother's claim for exclusive possession at trial and negatively impact the vulnerable child.

The court granted the mother's request, ordering the father to cooperate in refinancing the matrimonial home.

The plaintiff purchaser sued the defendant vendors for specific performance or damages after a real estate transaction failed to close.

The transaction aborted because a third party, a previous prospective purchaser, registered a certificate of pending litigation against the property days before closing.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, relying on the annulment clause in the agreement of purchase and sale.

The court granted the motion, finding the defendants acted reasonably and in good faith, and were unable to remove the certificate of pending litigation by the closing date, meaning the agreement came to an end by its own terms.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order disqualifying the respondent’s counsel due to a conflict of interest arising from a prior consultation with a lawyer from the same firm.

During the consultation, the applicant discussed confidential information regarding the contemplated family law dispute and provided a retainer before the conflict was discovered.

The firm attempted to implement a “Chinese wall” and asserted that no confidential information had been shared with the lawyer representing the respondent.

Applying the principles in MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court held that undertakings alone were insufficient to rebut the presumption that confidential information could be shared within a firm.

Considering the duty of loyalty and the public interest in maintaining confidence in the administration of justice, the court concluded the firm must be disqualified from acting for the respondent.

The plaintiff and other lien claimants sought a determination of the basic holdback amount under the Construction Lien Act following the sale of a partially completed retirement home project by the defendant mortgagee.

The mortgagee argued the holdback was reduced by payments made to sub-trades during construction.

The court found that the owner violated section 25 of the Act by releasing holdback funds before certificates of completion were issued, and that such a breach could not be cured retroactively.

The court fixed the basic holdback at the full 10% of the value of services and materials provided, plus applicable GST.