Wade L. Smith

The applicants, charged with violating the Quarantine Act, brought numerous pre-trial motions challenging the validity of the charging documents, the legislation itself, the authority of the screening officer, alleged breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (including sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11(a), 11(e), 11(i), and 15), and unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the charging documents valid, the Quarantine Act enforceable, the screening officer's authority established, no Charter breaches proven due to lack of evidence or prior judicial precedent, and no unreasonable delay after accounting for defence-caused delay and the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The matter was remitted for trial.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion to void a lease in the context of an oppression application under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to provide further written submissions on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in light of s. 249 of the Act, or alternatively, whether the underlying order was final and therefore appealable to the Court of Appeal rather than the Divisional Court.

Following the dismissal of the responding party's urgent motion for breach of fiduciary duty and contempt, and the dismissal of the moving party's cross-motion to remove counsel, the moving party sought partial indemnity costs of $30,019.

The responding party argued for no costs due to divided success or that costs be reserved.

The court found the moving party was the successful party on the substantive issues, which were more complex and important than the removal motion.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs at $24,000 payable by the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion in an oppression application, alleging the respondent breached her fiduciary duties by usurping a corporate opportunity to extend a commercial lease and seeking a constructive trust over the new lease.

The applicant also alleged the respondent was in civil contempt of an interim order governing the joint management of their deadlocked company.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lease extension was not a maturing corporate opportunity because the parties' deadlock rendered the company unable and unwilling to pursue it.

The court also found the applicant failed to establish civil contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $8,841.12 for a case conference and a motion concerning parenting issues, alleging unreasonable conduct by the respondent and having bested her own offer to settle.

The respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs or a lesser amount.

The court, applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality from *Beaver v. Hill* and *Mattina v. Mattina*, found the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct but determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for having bested her offer.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $4,625, inclusive of the case conference and motion, payable within 30 days.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for a temporary order for primary residential care of the three children, with specific parenting time for the respondent father.

The father opposed, seeking a different schedule, including equal residential time when he returned to work.

The court found serious credibility issues with the father's evidence and noted his conduct in overholding and withholding the children.

The mother's account of primary caregiving prior to separation was accepted.

The court granted the mother primary residential care, finding it to be in the children's best interests, and dismissed the father's counter-proposal for immediate or future equal residential time due to the children's need for stability.

The court addressed the non-payment of spousal support arrears amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent had purchased a bank draft but lost it, causing a delay in payment.

Considering the operational suspensions of the court and the respondent's age, the court ordered the respondent to replace the draft by April 7, 2020, and ensure its delivery to the applicant's counsel, provided it was safe to do so.

Counsel were also directed to provide an update by April 9, 2020.

The appellant husband appealed an order directing the sale of a jointly owned property prior to trial.

The Divisional Court reviewed the motion judge's decision, noting that a joint owner has a prima facie right to an order for sale unless it would cause prejudice, hardship, or injustice.

The court found that the motion judge applied the correct legal test, properly weighed the evidence, and appropriately exercised her discretion in ordering the sale while protecting the husband's interests by restraining the wife from encumbering her own property.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of third-party mental health and police records relating to the respondent mother in a child protection status review proceeding.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing it was a fishing expedition and an invasion of her privacy.

The court granted the motion, finding that the records may be relevant to assessing the mother's ability to parent and the children's best interests, and that the mother had not provided a physician's statement indicating that disclosure would cause harm.

The Respondent moved to vary a temporary spousal support order, seeking suspension of payments retroactive to December 1, 2018, and disclosure.

The Applicant opposed, seeking significant disclosure, access to the matrimonial home, and a non-dissipation order.

The court dismissed the non-dissipation order due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation.

The motion to vary spousal support was treated as a de novo hearing, as the original order was "without prejudice" due to an incomplete financial record.

The court found the Applicant still in need of support and the Respondent able to pay, but noted changes in the Respondent's income.

The spousal support was reduced from $1,500 to $1,000 per month, effective May 1, 2019, and remained on a without prejudice basis.

The Applicant's disclosure requests were addressed, and the Respondent was ordered to provide extensive financial disclosure.

The applicant mother was entirely successful on her motion to change the children's primary residence, establish parenting time, and obtain child support.

She sought costs for the motion.

The court found that the applicant's offer to settle was more favourable to the respondent than the final order, entitling her to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

After reducing some hours that pertained to the overall application rather than the motion, the court awarded the applicant costs of $11,492.38.

The Applicant, Ms. Davidson, sought costs after being the more successful party on a motion concerning exclusive possession and sale of the matrimonial home, child support for two adult children, and compliance with a disclosure order.

The Respondent, Mr. Davidson, brought a cross-motion.

The court found Ms. Davidson more successful overall, having obtained orders for exclusive possession, sale, and child support based on imputed income.

While both parties exhibited some unreasonable behaviour, Mr. Davidson's was to a greater extent, particularly regarding disclosure.

The court fixed costs at $8,000 for Ms. Davidson, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by Mr. Davidson.

The respondent father brought a successful motion to change, resulting in a reduction and termination of spousal support, imputation of income to the applicant mother, and orders for child support.

The father sought costs of the motion.

The court found the father was the successful party and that the mother's positions were unreasonable.

The mother also failed to make an offer to settle, whereas the father made a reasonable offer.

The court ordered the mother to pay costs of $15,000 to the father.

This decision addresses the costs following a previous motion in Niranjan v. Rajaghatta, 2018 ONSC 5557.

The Applicant, Hema Niranjan, sought full recovery of her costs, arguing she was the successful party and the Respondent, Niranjan Rajaghatta, acted unreasonably.

The Respondent, self-represented, also sought costs, claiming success on child support and alleging the Applicant acted unlawfully.

The court found the Applicant was the successful party on the central issues of disclosure and the sale of the Brookstone property, and that her behaviour was reasonable.

The Respondent's behaviour was deemed unreasonable due to filing an unidentified affidavit and failing to provide full and frank disclosure.

Consequently, the court awarded the Applicant fixed costs of $3,500, payable forthwith.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking comprehensive financial disclosure from the Respondent, an order for interim child support, and the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed the motion and attempted to bring a cross-motion, which was dismissed due to late service.

The court found the Respondent had failed to provide full and frank disclosure despite previous orders and drew an adverse inference regarding his divestment of corporate shares.

The court granted the Applicant's requests for detailed disclosure, ordered the continuation of interim child support, and mandated the sale of the jointly owned property, finding no prejudice to the Respondent's claims under the Family Law Act.

In this family law motion, the applicant sought exclusive possession and sale of the matrimonial home, sale of other properties, temporary spousal and child support, and to strike the respondent's pleadings.

The respondent cross-moved for exclusive possession, leave to claim a constructive trust, sale of one property, and support orders.

The court granted the applicant temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and ordered its sale, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld consent.

The court imputed an income of $82,000 to the respondent for temporary spousal and child support purposes.

The applicant's request to strike pleadings was denied, but the respondent was ordered to provide full financial disclosure.

The respondent was granted leave to amend his pleadings to claim a constructive trust.

The father brought a motion to change a 2007 consent order, seeking to terminate spousal support and vary child support after both children moved to his primary care.

The mother opposed the termination of spousal support, citing health issues and an inability to find full-time work, and sought retroactive child support based on the father's significantly increased income.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the mother, finding her intentionally under-employed, and ordered her to pay child support and reimburse the father for overpayments.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support for 2015-2016, and ordered that spousal support step down and terminate in April 2019, finding the mother had been compensated for the economic disadvantages of the marriage.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a temporary order to relocate the primary residence of the parties' two children from Ottawa to Brockville, Ontario, and for child support.

The respondent father opposed the motion.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a clause in the separation agreement requiring consent or a court order for relocation.

Applying the best interests of the child test from Gordon v. Goertz and interim mobility factors from Plumley v. Plumley, the court granted the temporary order permitting the move, citing the mother's new full-time employment, the strong family support network in Brockville, and the children's strong preference to relocate.

The father's parenting time was adjusted, and child support was ordered effective August 1, 2018.

A request for child counselling was declined on a temporary basis due to a lack of clear necessity and the joint decision-making authority of the parents.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim support, and a restraining order following the parties' separation.

The youngest child had been experiencing severe mental health issues and suicidal ideation related to the separation.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the home to provide stability for the child, deferred the support issues while ordering the father to pay specific home expenses, and dismissed the request for a restraining order due to insufficient evidence.

The respondent brought a motion under Rule 11(3) of the Family Law Rules for permission to amend her Answer and Claim, proposing extensive changes including thirty new claims and over a hundred factual changes, many of which were tort claims for damages.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court allowed some of the proposed new claims, particularly tort claims like intentional infliction of mental suffering, finding them tenable at law and distinguishing previous Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.

However, the court disallowed other claims as redundant or untenable, and denied leave for the extensive factual amendments due to prolixity and lack of proportionality.