C. Nelson

In a family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion for contempt against a lawyer who was not a party to the litigation but who held proceeds from the sale of the respondent’s business in trust.

A prior ex parte freezing order required the proceeds of sale to remain in trust pending further court order, except for payment to a secured creditor and legal fees.

Despite receiving the order and being warned not to breach it, the lawyer disbursed substantial funds to trade creditors, family members of the respondent, and others without seeking court approval.

The court held that the order was clear and unequivocal and that negotiations between counsel did not alter its binding effect.

Applying the contempt test, the court found that the lawyer knowingly and deliberately breached the order beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant mother brought a motion for financial disclosure from the respondent father dating back to 1995 in relation to a claim for retroactive child support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to sever the issue of entitlement for the years 1995-2007, arguing that a trial should be held on entitlement before disclosure is ordered.

The court dismissed the cross-motion for severance, finding that financial disclosure is necessary to assess whether the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct under the D.B.S. framework.

The court granted the applicant's motion for disclosure, ordering the respondent to produce financial information from 1995 onwards.

A family law trial concerning equalization of net family property following the separation of spouses.

The applicant, acting as executor of the deceased husband’s estate, sought inclusion of a Toronto condominium and certain financial accounts in the respondent wife’s net family property.

The court addressed whether the condominium qualified as a matrimonial home under s. 18 of the Family Law Act and whether inherited funds held in investment accounts were excluded property under s. 4(2).

The court held the condominium was not ordinarily occupied as a family residence and therefore was not a matrimonial home.

The court also found the investment account funds were traceable to an inheritance and were excluded property, while certain credit union accounts were included in the wife’s net family property.