Ashley Elizabeth Gibson

This case concerns a trial of an issue regarding the enforceability of a Cohabitation Agreement, which became a Marriage Contract upon the parties' marriage.

The Applicant husband sought to uphold the agreement, while the Respondent wife sought to have it set aside.

The court found that the Applicant failed to provide significant financial disclosure, undervaluing assets by a substantial margin and omitting business interests.

The Respondent did not fully understand the nature or consequences of the agreement due to language barriers, comprehension challenges, and the Applicant's emotional and psychological manipulation, including threats to cancel the wedding.

The agreement also contained an unenforceable provision regarding the matrimonial home.

Consequently, the court set aside the domestic contract in its entirety, finding a failure of procedural integrity due to the Applicant's exploitation of the Respondent's vulnerability.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of McKenzie J. dated May 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

This summary judgment motion addressed a dispute between separated parents regarding healthcare decision-making for their three children, specifically concerning vaccinations.

The parties had partial minutes of settlement, but the vaccination issue remained outstanding.

The court considered the children's capacity to consent to medical treatment under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, and the allocation of decision-making authority.

The court ordered specific vaccination protocols for the youngest child and made the middle child's vaccination contingent on his consent, while affirming the applicant's decision-making authority for the eldest child.

The appellant, Mr. Krebs, appealed a motion judge's decision that a cohabitation agreement with the respondent, Ms. Cote, was of no force and effect.

The motion judge erred by applying the common law rule that reconciliation terminates a separation agreement to a cohabitation agreement, by misinterpreting the parties' intentions, and by concluding that a $5,000 payment exhausted the agreement's terms.

The Court of Appeal held that the common law rule for separation agreements does not extend to cohabitation agreements, as the latter contemplates cohabitation.

Interpreting the agreement holistically, the Court found it was intended to be long-lasting and apply despite separations and reconciliations.

The $5,000 payment was not a triggering event that exhausted the entire agreement.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant successfully obtained an order for in-person schooling for the parties' child, and the remaining issue of residency was subsequently resolved by Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, while the respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found the applicant was the successful party regarding the schooling issue and was entitled to some costs.

However, the respondent's conduct was not deemed unreasonable enough to warrant full recovery costs.

The court considered the importance and complexity of the issues and the parties' resolution of the second issue.

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region brought a motion to place a First Nations child in foster care, while the mother brought a cross-motion to have the child returned to her under supervision.

The court considered the child's history, recent concerns including unexplained bruises, alcohol/cannabis use, and unauthorized caregivers, alongside the principles of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children.

Giving serious weight to the First Nation's judgment, the court found the child could be adequately protected under the mother's supervision with new conditions, dismissing the Society's motion and granting the mother's.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place a four-year-old child in extended society care without access for the purpose of adoption.

The parents opposed the motion, proposing alternative plans of care.

The court applied the principles of summary judgment in the child protection context and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the parents' plans were not viable due to a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to utilize offered resources.

The court granted the society's motion, ordering extended care without parental access, but allowed access for the child's half-sister.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy under section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act following the termination of her employment as a superintendent.

The tenant argued she was denied natural justice and that the Board erred in law by finding an employment relationship and failing to consider section 83(3) of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, that the Board sufficiently considered the statutory provisions, and that the finding of an employment relationship was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order granting joint custody of their three-year-old son in the form of a parallel parenting arrangement.

She argued that joint custody was inappropriate given the parties' inability to communicate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision reasonable and necessary to preserve the respondent father's relationship with his son, especially given findings that the mother overstated her fear and refused to cooperate.

This is a corrigendum to an endorsement issued on February 24, 2016.

The court corrected paragraphs 22 and 24 to reflect that one child is no longer a child of the marriage, terminating the applicant's child support obligation for that child effective June 1, 2015.

Child support for the remaining child was recalculated to $639.00 per month based on the applicant's 2015 income.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a declaration that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction over all matrimonial issues, including custody, support, and property division.

The respondent father argued that a New Orleans court had already assumed jurisdiction over the divorce and ancillary matters, excluding custody.

The court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter due to the mother and child's habitual residence in Ontario.

However, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court stayed all claims except custody and access to avoid conflicting judgments with the New Orleans court.

This was a costs endorsement following a family trial concerning the father's claim for unsupervised access and, to a lesser extent, joint custody or decision-making respecting the child.

The court rejected any suggestion of divided success and found the matter should have been resolved without trial.

The court held the respondent's inflexible position made settlement impossible and accepted the time spent and hourly rates of the applicant's counsel as reasonable and necessary.

Costs were awarded to the applicant inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant father sought unsupervised access and joint custody of his young son.

The respondent mother opposed, citing fears for her safety and alleging the father had anger and alcohol issues, and requested continued supervised access.

After a lengthy trial reviewing the parties' tumultuous relationship and the father's successful supervised visits, the court found no evidence the father posed a danger to the child.

The court ordered joint custody with divided final decision-making authority, a progressive schedule for unsupervised access, and mandated the use of Our Family Wizard for communication.