Aurelio Pascuzzi

The Applicant, Noshakhare Ajayi, and Respondent, Beauty O. Oziegbe, were in a common-law relationship and jointly purchased a house.

Title was registered 99% to Oziegbe and 1% to Ajayi to shield the property from Ajayi's ex-wife.

The court found a resulting trust, entitling Ajayi to a 50% beneficial interest in the property.

The court also addressed claims for improper conversion of property and damages for tortious conduct (assault and criminal harassment) by Ajayi against Oziegbe.

Oziegbe was awarded $7,500 in damages for Ajayi's misconduct, but her request for a permanent restraining order was dismissed due to lack of ongoing credible fear.

The property was ordered to be listed for sale with adjustments for carrying costs, occupation rent, converted property, and damages.

This is an addendum to the Court of Appeal's decision on an appeal from a Superior Court order regarding family law matters, specifically concerning support.

The appellant sought relief regarding costs awarded to the respondent on the motion below.

Although this relief was requested in the Notice of Appeal, it was not addressed in the original submissions or reasons.

Following written submissions from both parties, the Court of Appeal quashed the cost order from the motion below and remitted the costs issue back to the motion judge for discretionary determination.

The moving party brought a motion to change a consent order governing child and spousal support after losing employment and experiencing a substantial reduction in income.

The responding party argued that the original order reflected imputed income and that the payor continued to conceal income, relying on pleadings from unrelated litigation and alleged disclosure deficiencies.

The court held that the pleadings were not evidence and that there was no proof of hidden income.

Applying the definition of "true income" in the consent order and the test for variation established in Willick v. Willick and G.(L.) v. B.(G.), the court found a material change in circumstances due to the payor’s reduced income.

The court therefore varied the child support and spousal support provisions retroactively but declined to delete the arrears provision.

Following a family law trial, the court determined custody, access, and support issues concerning the parties’ child.

The applicant was granted final custody, while the respondent father received structured unsupervised access including alternate weekends, religious holidays, and progressively increasing summer access.

The court continued an existing restraining order with exceptions to facilitate parenting exchanges and limited communication concerning the child.

The court found that the applicant was no longer entitled to spousal support after January 1, 2012 and dismissed the respondent’s claim for spousal support.

Given the respondent’s disability and subsistence income from ODSP and CPP, the court ordered reduced child support of $50 per month and rescinded accumulated support arrears.