Tzimas

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The main issues at trial were parenting arrangements, decision-making authority, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the respondent mother had engaged in marginalizing conduct and attempted to alienate the children from the applicant father.

The court ordered a shared parenting week-about schedule and granted final decision-making authority to the father, subject to a detailed communication protocol.

On equalization, the court found that funds advanced by the mother's parents were a loan, and waived the father's equalization payment due to the mother's non-disclosure and unilateral disposal of household contents.

The mother was ordered to reimburse the father for post-separation adjustments.

The purchaser of a commercial property sought a declaration that the tenant was an over-holding occupant and sought vacant possession, arguing the commercial lease was not registered on title.

The tenant brought a cross-application for a declaration that the lease was valid and subsisting.

The court found that the purchaser had actual and deemed knowledge of the long-term commercial lease prior to closing, as they had visited the property multiple times, observed the business, and their real estate lawyer had received a copy of the lease from the vendor's lawyer before closing.

The purchaser's application was dismissed and the tenant's lease was declared valid and subsisting.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order regarding spousal and child support, and sought various adjustments to his accumulated support arrears with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

He also sought a declaration that a mortgage he granted to his parents was valid and took priority over the FRO's lien.

The court terminated spousal support and adjusted child support on consent due to the applicant mother's remarriage.

However, the court dismissed the respondent's requests to reduce his support arrears, finding he could not benefit from his deliberate failure to pay support.

The court also found the mortgage granted to the respondent's parents was a fraudulent conveyance designed to avoid his court-ordered obligations, and ordered the proceeds of the sale of his condominium to be paid to the applicant.

The applicant sought disclosure of the audio and transcript of an anonymous 911 call reporting a man with a handgun in a parking lot.

The Crown opposed disclosure, arguing the caller was protected by confidential informant privilege.

After reviewing the audio ex parte, the court applied the test for informant privilege and found that the 911 dispatcher's reassuring comments constituted an implicit promise of confidentiality, and the caller's conduct indicated a desire to remain anonymous.

The court concluded the call was protected by informant privilege and dismissed the application for disclosure.

The offender was convicted of trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of cocaine.

The offences occurred while the offender was on bail for a previous trafficking charge.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years, while the defence sought two to two and a half years.

The court balanced the aggravating factors, including the nature and quantity of the drugs and the offender's related criminal record, against mitigating factors such as a positive pre-sentence report, family support, and efforts to upgrade his education.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court sentenced the offender to a global sentence of 24 months in custody, after credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of heroin and methamphetamine, after police found him sleeping in an apartment where drugs were hidden.

The accused admitted to possessing a small amount of methamphetamine found next to him but denied knowledge of the other drugs.

The court applied the W.(D.) test and the rule for circumstantial evidence, finding that while the accused's testimony was partially compromised, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational inference was that the accused had knowledge and control of the hidden drugs.

The accused was acquitted of the cocaine and heroin charges but convicted of methamphetamine possession.

The applicant wife sought spousal support and equalization of net family property following a 25-year relationship.

The court found that the matrimonial home, which had been transferred solely to the wife's name to shield it from the husband's creditors, was held in a resulting trust with each party owning a 50 percent interest.

The court declined to order an unequal division of net family property despite the husband's morally reprehensible conduct, finding it did not meet the high threshold of unconscionability.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $107,540.28.

The court also found the wife entitled to compensatory spousal support, imputed the husband's income at $95,000, and ordered a lump sum spousal support payment of $96,064 to effect a clean break due to high acrimony.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after a 25-year relationship.

The wife sought spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the matrimonial home, which had been transferred solely to the wife's name to protect it from the husband's creditors, was held 50 percent in trust for the husband under the presumption of a resulting trust.

The court declined to order an unequal division of net family property, finding that the husband's morally reprehensible conduct did not meet the exceptionally high threshold of unconscionability under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $107,540.28.

The court found the wife entitled to spousal support, imputing the husband's income at $95,000.

Due to the high level of acrimony between the parties, the court ordered the husband to pay a lump sum spousal support amount of $96,064 to effect a clean break.

Following a 24-year marriage, the parties sought determination of spousal support, child support, and equalization.

The court imputed income to the respondent on a staggered basis, recognizing her need to re-enter the workforce.

Spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the SSAG, with the court factoring in the applicant's obligations under a Mahr (Islamic marriage contract) and the respondent's loss of medical benefits.

Child support was ordered for two adult sons pursuing post-secondary education, with extended support for one son due to mental health challenges.

The court also determined the equalization payment, rejecting the applicant's claim that the respondent possessed $100,000 in jewelry.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and section 7 expenses for the parties' two children, one of whom has Down Syndrome.

The respondent father, who was self-represented, sought joint custody but had a history of sporadic access and poor communication with the mother.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the parents' inability to communicate made joint custody unworkable.

The court also imputed an annual income of $35,000 to the father, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered child support and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses based on that income.

The plaintiff brought an action for $82,000 based on a promissory note signed by the defendants, his brother and his brother's family.

The funds were advanced to support the defendants' immigration to Canada, which involved an arranged marriage and various financial arrangements.

The defendants pleaded non est factum, claiming they did not understand the document because it was in English and they thought it was an immigration form.

The court rejected this defence, finding the document was explained to them in their native language and they signed it voluntarily.

The court also drew an adverse inference against the primary defendant who attended the trial but failed to testify.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff with substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a case management judge's order that amended the definition of an Ontario global class by removing members who participated in a court-approved settlement of parallel U.S. proceedings.

The plaintiffs argued the judge lacked jurisdiction, was barred by issue estoppel, and erred in recognizing the U.S. settlement without evaluating its merits.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no palpable or overriding errors in the motion judge's exercise of discretion or application of international comity principles.