Aaron Bradley Robert Drury

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Matthew James Avery from an uncontested trial order requiring him to pay child support, s. 7 expenses, and granting a vesting order for sole title to the matrimonial home to Angela Nadine Wade.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify hearing the appeal, no error in the trial judge’s exercise of discretion, and that the appellant had adequate notice of the relief sought.

The court also held that the absence of evidence of the current value of the home did not result in injustice, particularly given the appellant’s failure to participate or provide disclosure.

The appellant, Cassandra Lorenne Ross, appealed a summary judgment order concerning the division of proceeds from a jointly held property with the respondent, Phillip Edward Glenn Surridge, following their separation.

The original motion judge found unjust enrichment in favour of the respondent, who had made all property payments, and denied the appellant's claim for occupation rent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings on unjust enrichment, the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment, and the lack of donative intent.

The court also upheld the denial of occupation rent due to insufficient evidence and the respondent's entitlement to reimbursement for property improvements.

The appellant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court requiring him to pay outstanding costs and post security for costs for his family law appeals.

The appellant sought to introduce his 2022 income tax return as fresh evidence to show a dramatically reduced income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, applying the Palmer test.

The court also dismissed the motion to set aside the security for costs order, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellant, Charles James Hevey, appealed a finding of contempt made against him in a family law proceeding for allegedly violating two preservation orders.

The Court of Appeal found that the first preservation order was not violated as the transactions did not diminish asset value and the appellant did not personally benefit.

Regarding the second order, the court determined that the order lacked clarity, particularly concerning the interplay between paragraphs permitting business operations and reporting requirements.

Applying the *Carey v. Laiken* test for civil contempt, the court concluded that the order did not clearly and unequivocally prohibit the impugned mortgage.

Consequently, the contempt findings and associated sanctions were set aside.

The respondent in a family law appeal brought a motion for security for costs against the appellant.

The court determined that the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the Family Law Rules, governed the motion.

Applying Rule 61.06(1), the court found that the appellant resided outside Ontario, had unpaid costs awards, and likely had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court ordered the appellant to pay $68,631.32 in outstanding costs and post $25,000 as security for the appeal costs, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal specific paragraphs of the orders dated June 27, 2022, and November 29, 2022.

Costs of the motions were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

This endorsement addresses the penalty phase following a finding that the respondent was in contempt of two prior court orders.

The court determined the quantum of fines for each contempt finding, specifying that these fines should be payable to the applicant rather than the Minister of Finance.

The decision also outlined the payment terms for the fines and costs, linking them to the outcome of a separate commercial proceeding, and clarified conditions under which the respondent could seek further court orders despite existing sanctions.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to extend the time to file a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

Upon reviewing the chronology, the parties agreed that the motion for leave to appeal was actually served and filed within the time provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

On consent, the motion for leave to extend time was withdrawn, and a case conference was directed for related matters.

The parties, who were unmarried cohabitants, jointly purchased a home.

The applicant paid the down payment and all mortgage and property expenses during cohabitation and for 3.75 years post-separation.

After the property was sold, the applicant moved for summary judgment seeking an unequal division of the net sale proceeds based on unjust enrichment.

The respondent opposed, seeking equal division and occupation rent for the post-separation period.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding he was unjustly enriched by paying down the mortgage principal and replacing the furnace without contribution from the respondent.

The respondent's claim for occupation rent was dismissed as inequitable given her lack of financial contribution to the property.

The applicant brought motions for contempt and further disclosure against the respondent in a family law proceeding.

The court found the respondent in contempt of two previous preservation orders for selling a boat slip and placing a new mortgage on a property without notice.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay the costs of a forensic audit due to his false assertions about having no assets at the time of separation, and made comprehensive orders for further disclosure of corporate and trust records.

The applicant mother brought multiple motions, and the respondent father brought cross-motions, seeking interim orders regarding parenting time, child support, spousal support, and issues related to the matrimonial home mortgage and section 7 expenses.

The court maintained the existing 60/40 parenting split for the younger child, imputed income to the applicant for child support calculations, dismissed the applicant's claim for interim spousal support, and dismissed the applicant's request to remove her name from the mortgage or sell the home.

Section 7 expenses were ordered to be divided proportionally.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party filed costs outlines, no costs were ordered.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim relief in a family law proceeding.

The applicant mother sought interim spousal support, imputation of income to the respondent, and financial disclosure regarding the respondent's rental properties.

The respondent father sought to impute income to the applicant, occupation rent, unrestricted access to the matrimonial home, a vocational assessment of the applicant, and shared decision-making authority.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $2,413 per month, declining to impute income to the applicant who had been a stay-at-home mother since 2007.

The court ordered the respondent to provide appraisals for his 15 rental properties and bank statements.

The respondent's requests for occupation rent and unrestricted access to the home were dismissed.

The court varied the interim parenting order to grant primary residence and decision-making responsibility to the applicant, while increasing the respondent's parenting time.

The plaintiff sought to enforce a verbal agreement for a $115,000 loan and $844.90 for airfare against her former son-in-law, the defendant.

The defendant denied the existence of any loan or agreement to repay the airfare.

The court found no legally enforceable agreement, noting vague, inconsistent, and unreliable evidence from the plaintiff and her daughter, and the defendant's admission of having sworn a false affidavit in prior matrimonial litigation.

The claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence to establish a contract.