Carol J. Craig

The applicant, Lise Cassan, sought dependent's relief from the estate of Jean-Guy Villeneuve, claiming they lived in a conjugal relationship from 2006 until his death in 2022 and that he financially supported her.

The estate disputed the cohabitation and support, arguing she maintained a separate apartment and he had other relationships.

Applying the Molodowich factors, the court found that the applicant was a dependent spouse who had cohabited continuously with the deceased for over three years and received ongoing, systematic financial support.

The court granted interim support of $2,000 per month to the applicant, pending final disposition.

This costs endorsement followed a 10-day trial addressing parenting, child support, spousal support, imputation of income, and equalization of net family property.

The court found overall success was divided, with the applicant succeeding on equalization and imputation of income, and the respondent succeeding on parenting issues, spousal support, and post-separation adjustments.

Both parties were found to have behaved unreasonably—the applicant by not paying child support and the respondent by failing to provide complete financial disclosure and clarity on positions.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking an order for their incapacitated 86-year-old mother to move into a memory care suite at a retirement residence, while one respondent advocated for a long-term care facility.

The court found no urgency and, to resolve the impasse between the siblings acting as powers of attorney, appointed the respondent who had primarily cared for the mother as the sole power of attorney for personal care regarding the mother's placement.

Additionally, the court ordered the sale of the mother's home, appointing the applicant as the sole power of attorney for property for the sale, subject to agreement on terms and disposal of personal property.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the Applicant was successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis from the date of her offer to settle, totaling $18,558.40.

The Respondent conceded costs but argued the quantum was excessive and that the Applicant's offer, which included a non-severable clause for a disputed loan repayment, was less favorable than the motion's outcome, thus precluding full recovery costs.

The court agreed with the Respondent, finding the offer less favorable due to the disputed loan.

The court also deemed the hours billed excessive for the issues.

Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant $9,600, representing partial indemnity costs on a reduced quantum of hours.

The applicant brought a motion for an order regarding the sale of the parties' matrimonial home.

The respondent agreed to the sale but disputed the choice of real estate agent and the request for proceeds to be held in trust.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home with the applicant's preferred real estate agent, Carol Traversy, citing her neutrality and the prior process for selecting agents for other properties.

The court also ordered that the net proceeds of the sale be held in trust pending a final order or agreement, due to the complex financial affairs of the parties and the respondent's lack of timely corporate financial disclosure, which raised concerns about potential equalization payments and child support arrears.

The applicant sought a declaration that $70,500 she advanced to the deceased was a loan payable by his estate, plus interest.

The estate disputed the claim, arguing insufficient corroboration under s. 13 of Ontario's Evidence Act due to lack of written documentation.

The court found sufficient corroboration through affidavit evidence from the deceased's brother and cousin, combined with financial records, concluding that the funds were indeed a loan.

The estate trustee was ordered to repay the loan with interest.

The parties, both veterinarians, separated after a 10.5-year marriage.

The trial addressed equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

A major issue was the valuation and inclusion of the respondent's survivor interest in the applicant's pension, which the court ruled must be included in her net family property, resulting in a significant equalization payment owed to the applicant.

To satisfy this payment, the court ordered the transfer of the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home to the applicant.

The court also awarded the respondent retroactive and ongoing spousal support on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, recognizing the economic disadvantage she suffered from the marriage breakdown.

The appellant, Igor Alexander Winter, appealed a trial decision regarding the division of net proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned home following the breakup of his relationship with the respondent, Ronald James MacIntyre.

The trial judge had ordered an equal division, finding that Winter intended to gift his initial contributions (down payments) to MacIntyre.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to properly apply the presumption of resulting trust, which places the burden on the transferee (MacIntyre) to prove a gift was intended by the transferor (Winter).

The Court held that the trial judge's reasoning was flawed, particularly in extrapolating an intention to gift from the joint tenancy established for survivorship purposes, and that there was insufficient clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust.

The appeal was allowed, and Winter was ordered to be repaid his initial contributions from the sale proceeds before equal division of the balance.

The Estate Trustee sought directions from the court regarding the interpretation and distribution of two estates following the murder of the testators by their adopted son.

The central issue was the application of the criminal forfeiture rule (slayer rule) and whether the estates should be held in trust for the murderer's potential unborn children or accelerated to alternate beneficiaries.

The court applied the implied intention approach, ruling that the murderer was disentitled from any benefit.

It further determined that the gifts to the murderer's unborn issue should also fail due to public policy and the absence of living issue at the time of disentitlement, thereby accelerating the distribution of the estates to the next lineal beneficiaries (the testatrix's brothers), subject to specific annuity provisions.

The Court of Appeal heard motions concerning an appeal from an order requiring the passing of accounts for an estate.

The respondent (original applicant) sought to quash the appellants' appeal due to late service and to extend time for his cross-appeal to vary the lower court order to explicitly grant leave for his passing of accounts application.

The appellants (original respondents) sought to extend time for their notice of appeal.

The court granted the respondent's motion to extend time for his cross-appeal, finding it warranted by the justice of the case and that it would not cause prejudice.

The respondent's motion to quash the appeal was not pressed and was deemed not in the interests of justice to grant due to a technical, non-prejudicial delay.

Consequently, the appellants' motion for an extension of time was dismissed as unnecessary.

Following a family law trial regarding spousal support and property division, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a partial or full indemnity basis, arguing he was the most successful party and that the respondent acted unreasonably.

The respondent argued for full recovery costs based on divided success and an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party, having succeeded on periodic spousal support, security for support, and property division.

After considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the fees claimed, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant fixed costs of $150,000.

The applicant father sought a temporary order for primary residential care or an equally shared residential schedule for his nine-year-old son, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The mother opposed, asserting the child should continue to reside with her due to the child's wishes and fear of the father.

The court found the mother exerted significant influence over the child, supported his negative attitude towards the father, and minimized her own mental health issues.

The court dismissed the mother's allegations of abuse against the father and concluded that it was in the child's best interests to reside with the father temporarily, subject to specific terms for transition, counselling, and limited initial contact with the mother.

The applicant and respondent, former cohabitants of 22 years, sought resolution on spousal support and property division.

The applicant sought indefinite spousal support and equal division of the jointly owned Arnprior property.

The respondent denied spousal support entitlement, sought repayment of previously paid support, and reimbursement for initial contributions to both the Ottawa and Arnprior properties.

The court found the applicant entitled to indefinite non-compensatory spousal support, but at a lower monthly amount than previously ordered, resulting in a significant overpayment by the respondent.

The court also determined that the respondent's initial financial contributions to the properties were intended as gifts, thus ordering an equal division of the Arnprior property's net proceeds.

The overpaid spousal support was ordered to be deducted from the applicant's share of the property proceeds.

This case conference endorsement addressed the assignment of the proceeding to active case management under Rule 77 and issues concerning examinations for discovery and costs.

The defendants sought to conduct examinations for discovery by videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the plaintiff's age and health.

The plaintiff preferred written interrogatories or delayed in-person examinations.

Citing *Arconti v. Smith*, the court ordered that examinations for discovery proceed by videoconference, finding that the benefits of proceeding outweighed the plaintiff's concerns and that further delay was unreasonable.

The court also ordered submissions on costs thrown away from previously cancelled discoveries.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Corthorn J. dated November 4, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000 inclusive.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion to set aside or discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The court had previously found that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the original ex parte motion for the certificate, but that the certificate would have been granted anyway.

The defendants argued against costs due to the disclosure failure.

The court reserved costs of the motion to the trial judge, citing divided success on the motion (plaintiff won on substantive issue, defendants won on disclosure finding), the reasonableness of the defendants' motion, the early stage of the action, and the potential for litigation conduct to be a factor at trial.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their application under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 for leave to require the respondents, who were attorneys for property for their parents, to pass their accounts.

The application judge found no direct allegation of misfeasance or wrongdoing and declined to exercise his discretion to grant leave.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the application judge's exercise of discretion, noting the lack of significant concerns regarding the management of the grantors' affairs, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant was largely successful at a trial on a motion to change child support and sought costs of over $193,000.

The respondent argued the fees were excessive and disproportionate.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, finding the applicant's offers triggered full recovery cost consequences.

After adjusting the applicant's counsel's hourly rate and hours claimed to be more proportional to the respondent's, the court fixed costs at $130,000.

The court also ordered that the costs award is enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as it relates entirely to child support.

The plaintiff obtained a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a motion without notice against properties owned by corporations controlled by his son, alleging the son misappropriated funds while acting as his attorney for property.

The defendants moved to set aside the CPL for failure to make full and fair disclosure, or alternatively to discharge it under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that while the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts regarding the son's legal representation, the CPL would have been granted regardless.

The court also declined to discharge the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the properties and that the balance of equities favoured maintaining the CPL.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to prohibit the respondent mother from relocating their eight-year-old child from Petawawa to Stittsville.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking permission to relocate the child pending trial.

The mother had sold her home and purchased a new one in Stittsville without prior notice to the father, contrary to their separation agreement.

The court applied the principles for interim mobility, finding that the move would drastically disrupt the status quo and that there were genuine issues for trial regarding the father's involvement and the child's views.

The court dismissed the mother's cross-motion and ordered that the child remain in Petawawa pending trial.