David Ashford

This trial concerned the equalization of net family property following a marriage breakdown.

The central dispute revolved around the valuation and attribution of a Mexican vacation property, legally owned by a corporation in which the respondent held shares, but which the respondent argued the applicant had a beneficial interest in.

The court also addressed the valuation of various assets and liabilities, including pre-marriage assets and post-separation adjustments.

The court ultimately declined to impose a resulting trust on the Mexican property in favour of the applicant, attributing its full value to the respondent, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a separation agreement dated May 8, 2008, seeking increased child support and contribution from the respondent father toward section 7 post-secondary education expenses for three adult children.

The respondent father's employment was terminated in 2012, and he subsequently obtained new employment at a lower income.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined the father's income for support purposes.

The court ordered the father to pay child support for the youngest child and to contribute 67% of post-secondary education expenses for two of the children, with retroactive arrears to be paid after ongoing support obligations ceased.

Spousal support was adjusted based on the father's current income, with provisions for further adjustment upon termination of child support obligations.

Costs decision following a motion to change the terms of a separation agreement involving child support and daycare expense set-offs.

The applicant successfully argued that his income had decreased and that the respondent’s refusal to accept that position forced the matter to trial despite settlement offers.

The court emphasized that self-represented parties are not immune from adverse cost consequences and must reasonably assess litigation risks.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles of proportionality, the court awarded partial costs reflecting the applicant’s significant success while keeping the quantum fair and reasonable.

Costs were ordered payable by monthly installments.

A costs decision following interim custody motions in family proceedings.

The respondent to the motion sought costs after being the successful party on the substantive issue concerning a rotating 48‑hour parenting schedule.

The court found the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs but considered partial success by the other party on daycare arrangements, the absence of formal offers to settle, and unreasonable unilateral conduct relating to parenting time.

Balancing these factors, the court reduced the amount sought and ordered partial costs payable.

The applicant brought a motion to change the child support terms contained in a separation agreement, asserting that his income had decreased and that the support payable under the agreement no longer reflected his actual earnings.

The respondent alleged that the applicant was concealing income from cash payments, bonuses, and side work and sought imputation of a higher income.

The court accepted the applicant’s evidence that prior cash payments and bonuses had ceased and found no credible basis to impute additional income.

Applying the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, the court determined the applicant’s guideline income based on his actual earnings and recalculated table child support and section 7 childcare contributions accordingly.

The court also modified the payment structure for section 7 expenses to avoid reimbursement disputes between the parties.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated weekly income benefits.

The applicant sought arbitration for ongoing income benefits and rehabilitation expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's wrist injury prevented him from performing his pre-accident heavy manual labour as a pool installer, entitling him to income benefits up to the 156-week mark.

Furthermore, the arbitrator concluded that the injury continuously prevented the applicant from engaging in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, entitling him to post-156 week benefits.

The arbitrator also awarded rehabilitation benefits and arbitration expenses.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought weekly income benefits under the No-Fault Benefits Schedule, claiming he had an offer of employment made prior to the accident.

The Insurer disputed the existence of the pre-accident offer and paid benefits based on his pre-accident employment.

The arbitrator found the Applicant's evidence regarding the timing of the job offer implausible and uncorroborated.

The arbitrator concluded that the Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the offer of employment was made before the accident.

The complainant alleged that the union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by preventing him from being name hired on a pipeline construction project, contrary to the union's by-laws.

The union had agreed with the contractor at a pre-job conference to limit name requests to protect members on the out-of-work list.

The Board found that the union's policy was an established practice aimed at protecting unemployed members and was not applied arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith against the complainant.

The complaint was dismissed.