Danielle De Bartolo

In this family law motion, the respondent sought an order for partition and sale of a property held as a tenancy in common with the applicant.

The parties were former cohabitants who never married and disputed the length of cohabitation and date of separation.

The respondent sought to sell the investment property, citing loss of trust and alleged mismanagement by the applicant.

The applicant opposed the sale, arguing it would cause financial hardship and negatively affect the best interests of her 12-year-old daughter.

The court found the respondent had a prima facie right to seek sale under the Partition Act and that the applicant had not established malice, vexatiousness, or oppression.

However, the court imposed a three-month delay before listing to protect the child's stability and well-being.

The court also ordered that net proceeds be held in trust pending further court order.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dated July 30, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

Consequently, the responding party's cross-motion was dismissed as moot without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Sharma J. dated February 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,500 to the responding party.

Parents sought an extension of time to file their Answer/Plan of Care in a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The application was served on the parents on June 10, 2017, seeking a finding that the children were in need of protection due to excessive school absences.

The parents were initially granted an extension to September 25, 2017, but failed to file by that date.

Five months after service, they retained counsel and brought a motion for a further extension.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the parents' stated objectives could be achieved without filing pleadings, that no genuine issue for trial existed given the parents' agreement with the society's recommendations, and that the children's right to timely disposition outweighed the parents' right to participate through late-filed pleadings.