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, 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.

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 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 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.