Victoria R. Chiappetta

The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, including a former shareholder and several former employees, from competing against the plaintiff company and soliciting its clients and employees.

The court found that the former shareholder breached the restrictive covenants in the unanimous shareholder agreement and his fiduciary duties by orchestrating a plan to use confidential information to divert business to a newly formed competitor.

The court applied the strong prima facie case standard for the first branch of the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiffs established a strong case, would suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court granted the injunction against the former shareholder and the former employees, enjoining them from using confidential information and competing in association with the former shareholder.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his former real estate solicitor for professional negligence, alleging the solicitor failed to properly advise him regarding a $300,000 gift direction.

The plaintiff also moved to dismiss a counterclaim brought by one of the defendants on the basis that she was an undischarged bankrupt.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that genuine issues of credibility and the factual context of the transaction required a trial.

However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, concluding that the defendant lacked the legal capacity to commence the action as an undischarged bankrupt, and the proceeds claimed did not constitute after-acquired property.

The court determined custody and access for the parties' five-year-old son.

The father sought sole custody due to the mother's untreated psychiatric illness (delusional disorder) and inconsistent access attendance.

The mother denied the diagnosis and sought joint custody.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to award sole custody to the father with supervised access to the mother, given the mother's refusal of recommended treatment and other concerns regarding her living arrangements and participation in the OCL investigation.

The existing restraining order against the mother was terminated.

The applicants initiated a constitutional challenge to sections of the Children’s Law Reform Act and Vital Statistics Act concerning parental recognition for LGBTQ parents.

The respondent failed to file an Answer within the 30-day period and subsequently brought motions for an open-ended extension and directions.

The applicants brought a cross-motion.

The court dismissed all motions but, recognizing the complexity and importance of the constitutional issues, granted the respondent an extension to file an Answer and set a timetable for the litigation.

The respondent was sanctioned with $2,000 in costs for its unreasonable procedural conduct in delaying the filing of its motion for extension.

The parties separated and engaged in a high-conflict dispute over the parenting of their young daughter.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to San Francisco, where her extended family lived.

The father opposed the move, sought equal parenting time, and requested that no custody order be made.

The court declined to make a formal custody order, finding it would only fuel the conflict.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding that the move was primarily for her preference and would disrupt the child's consistent and beneficial relationship with her father.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule based on the assessor's recommendations, granted the mother final decision-making on medical and religious issues, and granted the father final decision-making on educational issues.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order making her child a Crown Ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother argued the trial judge erred in assessing her mental health, housing efforts, and the quality of access visits.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the mother's ongoing mental health challenges, including auditory hallucinations, and instability posed an overwhelming risk.

Fresh evidence regarding the mother's new housing and medication was admitted but found insufficient to alter the trial judge's findings.

Following a 20-year traditional marriage, the parties disputed the respondent's income for support purposes, as he operated a sole proprietorship and deducted personal expenses to lower his taxable income.

The court imputed income to the respondent, including an income tax gross-up on unreported income, fixing his income at $215,000.

The court ordered retroactive child and spousal support back to September 1, 2012, finding the respondent's failure to proactively determine his true income blameworthy.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and secured by a life insurance policy.

Following a 16‑day family law trial in which the applicant was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award after 15 years of litigation.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $777,000, arguing the respondent engaged in bad faith conduct and unreasonable litigation behaviour, including misleading evidence about property ownership and income.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith and repeatedly frustrated the litigation process.

The court held that full recovery costs were appropriate and rejected arguments based on proportionality and inability to pay.

Costs were fixed at $716,711.11 in favour of the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, an order compelling the respondent to refinance the mortgage, financial disclosure, and undifferentiated interim child and spousal support of $10,000 per month.

The respondent brought a cross‑motion seeking an order for sale of the matrimonial home.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel a party to refinance a mortgage where success depends on a third‑party lender’s approval, and found insufficient evidence that exclusive possession was in the child’s best interests.

However, due to incomplete and inconsistent financial disclosure from the respondent, the court relied on a prior consent arrangement between the parties and ordered interim undifferentiated support of $10,000 monthly along with further disclosure obligations.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleadings and a separate motion for contempt, both based on substantially similar allegations of breaching court orders.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the motion to strike pending the disposition of the contempt motion, arguing that responding to the motion to strike would effectively compel him to testify and violate his right against self-incrimination in the quasi-criminal contempt proceeding.

The court agreed, finding that the applicant's right to a fair trial on the contempt motion would be prejudiced if he were forced to respond to the civil motion to strike first.

The court ordered the motion to strike stayed pending the resolution of the contempt motion.

The respondent wife in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking an order that service of her Answer and Amended Answer on the applicant husband be deemed service on 36 added corporate and trust respondents, arguing the husband was their alter ego.

The court found insufficient evidence on the motion to make an alter ego finding.

The court validated service on one Ontario corporation and two entities in non-contracting states under the Rules of Civil Procedure as they had actual notice.

However, the court held it had no discretion to validate service on the remaining entities located in Hague Convention contracting states, as Rule 17.05(3) is mandatory and a complete code for service abroad.

The applicant husband sought a divorce, and the respondent wife sought to set aside their 1996 marriage contract, which waived spousal support and property equalization.

The court found the contract valid under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, noting the wife received independent legal advice and signed voluntarily despite the husband's failure to provide full financial disclosure.

However, the court set aside the spousal support waiver under section 33(4) of the Family Law Act, finding that enforcing it would result in unconscionable circumstances given the wife's 16-year financial dependence in a traditional marriage.

The applicant husband sought a divorce, and the respondent wife sought to set aside their 1996 marriage contract.

The contract waived spousal support and equalization.

The wife argued she did not understand the contract, signed under duress, and that the husband failed to disclose assets.

The court found the contract valid under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, noting the wife received independent legal advice and signed voluntarily despite being advised not to.

However, the court set aside the spousal support waiver under s. 33(4) of the Family Law Act, finding that enforcing it after a 16-year traditional marriage where the wife was financially dependent would result in unconscionable circumstances.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 17-year cohabitation and 8-year marriage.

They jointly operated an interior design business.

The respondent controlled the finances and used joint business revenues to purchase a commercial property in his own name, falsely claiming for years that it was owned by a corporation.

The court applied the doctrine of fraudulent concealment to toll the limitation period and awarded the applicant a 45% constructive trust interest in the property based on unjust enrichment.

The court also imputed significant income to the respondent, who had diverted rental income to his corporation to avoid support obligations.

The applicant was awarded lump sum retroactive spousal and child support, an equalization payment, and prejudgment interest, with the respondent's share of property sale proceeds to be paid into court as security due to his history of non-payment.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment ordering that his child be made a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The father raised numerous grounds of appeal, primarily challenging the trial judge's findings of fact regarding his parenting capacity, criminal history, and mental health, as well as the refusal to extend Society wardship or grant access.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in her factual findings or application of the law, and ordered the child to be placed in an adoptive home without further delay.

The applicant and respondent lived in a common law relationship for 24 years.

The respondent was the sole legal owner of the family residence.

Upon separation, the applicant sought a 50% beneficial interest in the home and occupation rent.

The court found a joint family venture existed, entitling the applicant to a 50% constructive trust interest based on the current value of the home.

The claim for occupation rent was dismissed as the applicant left voluntarily and had access to the home post-separation.

Following the breakdown of a common law relationship, the applicant claimed a 50% beneficial interest in the respondent's home based on an alleged agreement, proprietary estoppel, constructive trust, and resulting trust, and also sought a larger share of proceeds from a jointly held investment property.

The court found the applicant's $130,000 payment toward the home was a gift rather than a purchase of equity, and rejected all equitable trust and estoppel claims to the home.

The court held the parties owned the investment property equally as tenants in common and awarded the applicant 50% of the net sale proceeds, less amounts already paid.

Claims for breach of trust, intentional infliction of mental suffering, aggravated and punitive damages, investment-loss damages, website-removal relief, and a non-harassment order were all dismissed, except that the applicant was ordered to pay $3,000 for damage to the home.

On a family law motion and cross-motion, the court ordered the immediate listing and sale of the matrimonial home and denied the respondent's request for temporary exclusive possession.

Applying summary judgment principles and the prima facie right of a joint tenant to sale, the court held there was no triable issue supporting claims for permanent exclusive possession or a vesting order, and that immediate sale would not prejudice equalization claims because sale proceeds could be preserved.

The court also severed the divorce from corollary relief, fixed interim without prejudice spousal support at $3,208 per month, required continuation of insurance and beneficiary arrangements in favour of the respondent, and denied a non-depletion order under s. 40 of the Family Law Act.

Remaining relief was dismissed.

In a family trial following lengthy post-separation financial conflict, the court dismissed both parties' claims for post-separation accounting adjustments because the evidentiary record consisted largely of unreliable calculation charts unsupported by source documents.

The parties had agreed to equalization through a pension transfer, and a divorce was granted.

On child support, the court imputed income to the respondent based on his demonstrated standard of living and found him intentionally unemployed in the absence of admissible medical evidence establishing inability to work.

The court also imputed minimum-wage income to the applicant, found the adult daughter remained a child of the marriage while in full-time university studies, and ordered a formula for post-secondary expenses allocating net expenses 50 percent to the respondent, 25 percent to the applicant, and 25 percent to the child after disclosure and deduction of grants, bursaries, and scholarships.

Application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award made in Shanghai arising from unpaid amounts for parts and moulds supplied under international commercial agreements.

The respondent argued it had been unable to present its defence on alleged double recovery, that enforcement would offend Ontario public policy, and that part of the award concerning moulds was beyond the arbitration agreement.

The court held that the respondent had notice and full opportunity to present its case, that the public policy defence is narrow and not engaged, and that the mould dispute fell within the arbitral jurisdiction.

Recognition and enforcement were granted, with agreed costs to the applicant.