Ben Mignardi

The applicant sought an incremental increase in the respondent's parenting time with their child, while the respondent sought an immediate, dramatic increase.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act, found that maximum contact with both parents was in the child's best interests, despite past allegations of abuse against the respondent.

The court ordered an immediate increase in the respondent's parenting time, including alternating weekend overnights, and directed the parties to submit costs submissions.

The appellant sought a stay of the provisions of a final matrimonial order requiring her to transfer her interest in the matrimonial home to the respondent and vacate the property pending appeal.

The motions judge granted the stay relating to the disposition of the matrimonial home, residency, and division of household contents, while maintaining the obligation to pay child support.

The court found that the appellant established plausible grounds for appeal, irreparable harm to the status quo of the living arrangements, and that the balance of convenience favoured the appellant.

The mother sought sole custody, no access for the father, child support, a restraining order, and ancillary custody rights including passport and travel authority.

The father sought access only.

The court found that the father viciously attacked the mother in Cuba in February 2016, causing severe injuries including seven facial fractures requiring surgical reconstruction, while the child was present.

The court determined that the father lacked child-focused parenting capacity, demonstrated no insight into his conduct, and refused to engage in recommended counselling.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered no access for the father, granted the mother full authority over passport and travel, and imputed income to the father for child support purposes.

The applicants, joint tenants of a residential property, sought an order under the Partition Act authorizing the sale of the property and division of the proceeds.

The respondent, the former spouse or common-law partner of one applicant and residing in the property with their children, agreed to the sale but sought to have the entire proceeds held in trust pending anticipated claims relating to family property, businesses, and support.

The court held that the respondent had not commenced any proceedings asserting such claims and therefore had no basis for pre-judgment or pre-litigation security against the other applicant’s share of the proceeds.

The court authorized the sale of the property and ordered that only the applicant spouse’s half of the proceeds be held in trust, with the co-owner sibling free to receive her share.

The balance of the application relating to financial claims between the spouses was converted to an action.

The applicant developer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking forfeiture of condominium purchase deposits after the respondent purchaser failed to pay a required third deposit and did not complete the transaction.

The respondent argued that forfeiture would be unconscionable and that the applicant suffered no damages.

The court held that the agreement of purchase and sale clearly provided for forfeiture upon default and that proof of damages is not required to enforce a forfeited deposit.

Finding the case document-driven with no genuine issue requiring trial and insufficient evidentiary response from the respondent, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the counterclaim seeking return of the deposits.