Aurelio Pascuzzi

Following a six-day trial regarding property ownership, the applicant sought costs of $44,227.35.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, having obtained half the property as requested.

The applicant's offer to settle was more favourable than the trial outcome, entitling him to full recovery of costs from the date of the offer under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

While the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, it did not meet the high threshold for bad faith.

The court fixed costs payable to the applicant at $37,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

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 appellant appealed an order retroactively reducing the respondent's child and spousal support obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the respondent's job loss and subsequent re-employment at a lower salary constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the motion judge erred by retroactively varying support without conducting the proper legal analysis under the D.B.S. framework.

The matter was remitted to the motion judge to determine whether retroactive change is warranted, the date of retroactivity, and the quantum of support.

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 17-year marriage, the parties engaged in high-conflict litigation primarily driven by the mother's unreasonable expectations and alienation of the children from the father.

The court determined the date of separation and resolved outstanding financial issues, including child support, spousal support, equalization, and a trust claim.

The father was ordered to pay table child support, while the mother, who earned significantly more, was ordered to pay non-compensatory spousal support based on the Custodial Payor model of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The mother's claim for an equitable trust interest in the matrimonial home was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $25,000 to the father.

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.