Aaron Heard

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order to allow for temporary unsupervised access to his 10-year-old son.

The child had recently begun refusing to attend supervised access visits at an access centre.

The court found that the child's refusal to attend constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, the court dismissed the request for unsupervised access, finding it was not in the child's best interests given his health issues and the lack of recent contact.

Instead, the court ordered supervised access to resume in the community with the assistance of the father's brothers, and requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant for breach of commercial leases.

The defendant argued that the leases were signed on behalf of her corporation and raised defenses of set-off and promissory estoppel.

The court found that the defendant signed the leases in her personal capacity, as there was no evidence to support corporate adoption or proper corporate naming on the contracts as required by the Canada Business Act.

The court also rejected the defenses of set-off and promissory estoppel, finding that the plaintiff had mitigated damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff for unpaid rent and real estate commissions.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking spousal support, equalization of net family property (NFP), and an unequal division of NFP, among other claims.

This decision addresses the equalization claim, following a previous partial judgment.

The applicant sought an equalization payment and an unequal division based on the respondent's post-separation conduct, including depleting a pension and incurring joint debts.

The respondent, self-represented, argued against an unequal division due to his financial and health circumstances.

The court calculated an equalization payment of $40,815.51 owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The court declined to order an unequal division, finding that the respondent's actions, while problematic, did not meet the high threshold of "unconscionability" under the Family Law Act, especially since the respondent was already ordered to indemnify the applicant for the post-separation debts.

Summary judgment was granted for the equal division, with specific orders for how the equalization payment would be satisfied from a Law Society Compensation Fund payout and the respondent's WSIB Loss of Retirement Income Benefit.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion for equalization of net family property and sought an unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, citing the respondent's post-separation depletion of his pension and accumulation of joint debt.

The court found that an equal division was not unconscionable, as the respondent had already been ordered to indemnify the applicant for the post-separation debts.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $40,815.51 to the applicant, to be satisfied by the entirety of a pending Law Society Compensation Fund payout for stolen house proceeds, with the remainder rolled over from the respondent's WSIB Loss of Retirement Income Benefit.

The plaintiff mother sought summary judgment for a declaration that her daughter held title to a property in trust for her, a vesting order, and an accounting.

The property was purchased solely with the mother's funds, and the daughter had signed a Declaration of Trust.

The daughter later mortgaged the property without the mother's knowledge.

The court found a valid trust based on the three certainties (intention, subject matter, objects) and granted summary judgment, vesting the property in the mother's name and ordering a full accounting.

The daughter was also ordered to vacate the property.

The father brought a motion to change, and the mother brought a cross-motion, primarily concerning child support adjustments and parenting arrangements for their 14-year-old child.

The court determined the annual child support adjustments retroactively from April 1, 2015, based on the methodology prescribed in a previous 2013 Order, including the treatment of a severance payment as income and the calculation of s.7 expenses with tax credits and a $1,500 activity cap.

The mother's request for sole religious custody was dismissed, as was her request for non-variable child support.

The court made minor adjustments to the parenting schedule, including transfer locations, pick-up/drop-off times, March Break sharing, and telephone access, but dismissed both parties' requests for more significant changes, emphasizing the child's best interests and the existing delicate balance in a high-conflict co-parenting relationship.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the parties' child to Ottawa, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion to stay the Ottawa proceedings and continue the matter in the York Region.

The mother had unilaterally moved with the child to Markham shortly before commencing her application.

The court determined that the child's habitual residence was Ottawa, where the child was born and raised before the mother's departure.

The court ordered the mother to return the child to Ottawa within 10 days, finding that Ottawa was the proper jurisdiction for the proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion to continue a certificate of pending litigation on a property she previously resided in.

She claimed an interest in the property through an unproven constructive trust and alleged that the respondent's sale of the fire-damaged property to a third party was a fraudulent conveyance.

The court found the applicant's claim to an interest in the land to be tenuous and noted the absence of typical badges of fraud.

The motion was dismissed and the certificate of pending litigation was ordered vacated.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary custody, access, child support, and spousal support.

The parties disputed the respondent's income from his self-employed hair salon business and whether he should have overnight access given allegations of substance abuse.

The court granted the applicant primary care and control of the children and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent was granted conditional access, including overnights, provided he abstains from alcohol and drugs.

Due to insufficient financial disclosure, the court imputed the respondent's income at $100,000 and ordered interim child and spousal support accordingly.

The estate trustee applied to resolve two questions arising from the deceased's Will.

The deceased had named his estranged spouse as the beneficiary of a Life Income Fund Account but later directed in his Will that the funds be used to pay estate debts.

The court found that the spouses were living separate and apart at the time of death, meaning the spouse was not automatically entitled to the funds under pension legislation.

The court also held that the Will effectively revoked the earlier beneficiary designation.

Finally, the court ordered the spouse to pay $2,160 to the Estate for occupational rent and expenses incurred after the 60-day rent-free period provided by the Family Law Act.

The applicants sought to maintain an interlocutory injunction enjoining a former employee and his new company from soliciting clients.

The court found that the applicants continued to be at risk of irreparable harm from the loss of goodwill and business.

The injunction was maintained but amended to prohibit direct solicitation for a one-year period while allowing the respondents to accept unsolicited work from the applicants' clients.