Alyssa Weinerman

The moving party, a mother who co-owns a property with her daughter, sought an extension of time to appeal an order for the immediate sale of the property, and a stay of that order pending appeal.

The court denied the extension, finding the appeal lacked merit, the moving party had delayed and breached previous court orders, and the responding party was suffering prejudice by bearing the property's expenses while the moving party collected rental income.

The court also noted that even if the extension were granted, a stay would be denied as there was no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the responding party.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judge's order requiring her to make an equalization payment to the husband.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by ordering such a payment in an uncontested trial where the respondent husband provided no financial disclosure and never requested equalization.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by ordering an equalization payment without an adequate factual basis due to the respondent's complete failure to disclose financial information.

The court emphasized the fundamental duty of financial disclosure in family law proceedings and set aside the equalization order, directing that no equalization payment was owing and the appellant was entitled to the full proceeds of the matrimonial home sale.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the required timeframe and an inadequate explanation for the delay.

The court also noted that granting the extension would prejudice the respondent and the child, especially with a trial scheduled in two months.

The applicant brought a motion to proceed to an uncontested trial and to sell the matrimonial home after the respondent failed to file an Answer for over three months.

The respondent requested an extension of time to file his responding materials.

The court dismissed the respondent's request, finding the delay inordinate and unexplained.

The court granted the applicant's motion, allowing her to proceed uncontested and ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, with net proceeds to be held in trust.

The applicant, A.B., brought a motion seeking orders for substitute service of her application materials on the respondent, C.D., by email, and for the anonymization of the names of the parties and their children in the court file.

A.B. alleged C.D. was involved in a multi-million-dollar fraud, leading to threats against her and the children, and C.D.'s whereabouts were unknown.

The court granted both requests, finding substitute service appropriate given C.D.'s evasion and anonymization necessary to protect the family from physical and psychological harm, balancing it against the open court principle.

Costs were awarded to the applicant for the substitute service portion of the motion.