Carolyn Shelley

The respondent wife brought a motion for an order requiring detailed financial disclosure from the applicant husband and three non-party, privately held corporations in which the husband holds a minority shareholding.

The husband had failed to value his corporate interests despite acknowledging this obligation in his originating application filed over a year prior.

The wife sought disclosure to determine the husband's income for support purposes and the value of his corporate assets.

The husband and the corporations opposed disclosure without a comprehensive non-disclosure agreement.

The court found the wife met the test for non-party disclosure and ordered production of specified corporate documents and financial information without requiring the wife to sign an NDA, instead relying on the Family Law Rules' confidentiality provisions and professional obligations of counsel and experts.

The court also ordered that the proceedings be initialized to protect the corporations' privacy interests.

The defendant, Len's Cove Marina Ltd., brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff, Thomas McIlwain, concerning a defective boat.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Marina's explanations for its significant delay in responding to the claim and the default judgment implausible.

The court also determined that the Marina did not present an arguable defence on the merits, particularly regarding its reliance on a manufacturer's warranty not directly applicable to the claim against the Marina for selling an unmerchantable product.

The court concluded that setting aside the judgment would not serve the overall integrity of the administration of justice, given the unreasonableness of the Marina's conduct.

The Applicant mother sought costs following a settled disclosure motion, while the Respondent father sought partial indemnity costs, claiming the motion was unnecessary.

The court found the father's ongoing lack of compliance and delays with financial disclosure to be unreasonable conduct.

The mother was deemed the successful party on the substantial issue of disclosure, despite the motion settling.

The court awarded the mother elevated fixed costs of $2,800, finding the father's conduct warranted such an award but did not reach the threshold of bad faith for full indemnity.

The father's request for costs was dismissed.

The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement waiving spousal support and property rights.

After separation, the appellant husband sought equalization and spousal support, and requested the marriage contract be set aside under the Family Law Act.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent wife, finding the request to set aside the contract was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period in the Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a request to set aside a marriage contract is a proceeding for a declaration where no consequential relief is sought, and is therefore not subject to a limitation period under s. 16(1)(a) of the Limitations Act.

The underlying claims for equalization and support remain subject to their respective limitation periods.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to impute an annual income of $130,000 to him for the purpose of calculating spousal support.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by relying solely on previous earnings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge considered multiple factors including age, education, skills, and local job market rates.

The court also dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence of the appellant's post-hearing employment, noting the proper procedure for changed circumstances is a new motion to change.

The respondent wife brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the applicant husband's claim to set aside their marriage contract, arguing it was brought outside the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the claim to set aside the contract constituted a "claim" to remedy a loss and was subject to the two-year limitation period.

The husband had actual knowledge of the issues with the contract and the wife's reliance on it by October 17, 2012, making a court proceeding appropriate at that time.

The court also rejected the husband's argument regarding incapacity, finding no reliable evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

Consequently, the husband's claim to set aside the marriage contract was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellant mother appealed a final order dismissing her application to relocate her daughter to Ottawa and transferring primary care to the respondent father.

The mother argued the motions judge made errors of fact, law, and mixed fact and law, including misapprehending the requirement for consent to relocate and failing to adequately analyze the child's best interests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The motions judge correctly applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, properly considered the mother's past conduct regarding communication, and reasonably concluded that transferring primary care to the father, who offered to relocate to Kingston to minimize disruption, was in the child's best interests.

Counsel sought clarification on whether a previously granted stay pending appeal included a stay of further proceedings relating to costs in the Family Branch.

The court clarified that the stay applied to any further steps arising out of the lower court's endorsements, including making submissions on costs.

The court reasoned that it would be a more efficient use of court time and resources to hear the perfected appeal first, as a successful appeal would likely vitiate any costs award.

The mother brought a motion to stay two orders of a motions judge pending appeal.

The motions judge had ordered that the child be placed in the primary care of the father and suspended his child support obligations, after the mother sought permission to relocate the child to Ottawa.

The Divisional Court granted the stay, finding that the mother had a strong arguable appeal, that changing the child's long-standing primary residence with the mother would cause irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending the appeal.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the mother.

The respondent mother sought leave to appeal an interim spousal support order fixing support at $1,500 per month.

She argued the motion judge improperly treated the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines ceiling of $350,000 as a hard cap despite the payor’s higher income.

The court held that applying the SSAG ceiling in an interim support context was within the motion judge’s discretion and did not demonstrate a conflict in legal principles with other decisions.

The applicant also failed to show a good reason to doubt the correctness of the order or that the proposed appeal raised issues of public importance.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Following settlement of a family law dispute involving custody, access, property, and support, the parties sought a determination of costs.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the general principle that costs typically follow success but may not be appropriate where litigation resolves by consent without adjudication.

The judge found that success between the parties was divided and that it was difficult to determine a clear winner from the settlement terms.

Allegations of unreasonable conduct could not be assessed due to lack of sworn evidence and disputed facts.

In the absence of compelling reasons, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim joint custody of the parties' three-year-old child, as well as determinations on child and spousal support.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim sole custody, retroactive and ongoing child support for both the parties' child and her older child from a previous relationship, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The court granted interim sole custody to the mother, finding that the parties' inability to communicate and the child's lack of overnight visits with the father militated against joint custody.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support for the parties' child and spousal support, but dismissed the claims for retroactive support and child support for the older child, finding the father did not stand in loco parentis.