Recent Victory: Francisco v. Francisco
This is a very interesting case as it raises a novel area of law regarding Judges who are having Compressed hearings for substantive and complex legal matters such as in this particular case. In this case, my client had a termination of spousal support clause in his Separation Agreement that spousal support was to end on a particular date. The Application Judge varied this clause in a 2 hour hearing and as a result the client was denied due process.
We appealed the Order on the grounds that the hearing was too short and resulted in a denial of justice. The Appeal was ultimately abandoned and the issue of costs of the abandoned appeal and a previous motion were outstanding.
The Appeal Judge agreed that the 2 hour hearings raises a novel area law and are problematic. The Appeal Judge ordered nominal costs and dismissed costs on the motion on the grounds that the Respondent did not have a presumptive right to costs because my client did not behave unreasonably during the proceedings. Moreover, the Offers to Settle delivered by the opposing party were unreasonable and didn’t help resolve the litigation and in fact invited more litigation.
Offers are designed to encourage settlement and resolve issues. The Offer given to us was a rehash of the original order with no discounts and was not severable.
Flemmings v. Collett 1997 CanLII 17013 (ON CJ): Alienation case.
Snape v. Snape 2011 ONSC 3857 (CanLII) : Main issue was spousal support, and health care benefits.
Rodriguez v. Singh 2011 ONCJ 728 (CanLII) : Child support, imputed income, arrears, costs.
Lafazanidis v. Lafazanidis 2014 ONSC 3287 (CanLII): Promissory notes, spousal support, equalization payment.
A.C.W. v. T.M.P, 2014 ONSC 6275 Div. Ct (CanLii): Appeal of a final order. Mobility issue.
Ombac v. George 2015 ONSC 1938 (CanLII): Constructive trust, Occupation Rent, Spousal Support. Spousal Support withdrawn during trial.