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.

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.