David M. Winnitoy

The applicant sought an order lifting the automatic stay of proceedings imposed by the respondent's bankruptcy, along with orders to add the bankruptcy trustee as a co-respondent, amend the application, try certain matters, and compel disclosure.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it was brought in the wrong forum and should be brought in bankruptcy court.

The court found that the motion to lift the stay must be brought in bankruptcy court, not family court, as property claims are stayed by bankruptcy and must be addressed where the stay was imposed.

However, the court granted the applicant's request for disclosure as it relates to both property and support claims, with support claims not being stayed by bankruptcy.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving the validity of a family trust, equalization of net family property, unjust enrichment, and support issues.

The court found the Simcoe Group Trust to be a sham, ordered its assets and debts included in the Respondent’s net family property, and granted the Applicant an unequal division of property and lump sum spousal support.

The ruling also addresses the parties’ incomes, child support, and the impact of the Respondent’s financial conduct on the outcome.

The applicant sought to vary a 2018 consent order regarding an equalization payment, arguing that the amount transferred from the respondent's pension should have been grossed up for tax purposes, resulting in an underpayment of $66,723.93.

The applicant, self-represented at the time of the original order, discovered the alleged error in 2021 but did not bring the motion until May 2023.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to act promptly as required by the test for varying orders under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

The court emphasized that the respondent had relied on the finality of the 2018 order and that requiring an additional payment almost five years later would cause injustice.

This is an appeal from an order granting the respondent leave to amend his Answer seven years after filing, to advance constructive and resulting trust claims in three properties purchased during the marriage and held in the appellant’s name, but sold before the motion for leave to amend.

The appellant argued prejudice due to timing, that claims were statute-barred, and lack of jurisdiction over foreign land.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision that leave to amend was proper, the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied to the trust claims even after property sale, and the in rem jurisdiction issue was not relevant to the leave to amend motion.

The applicant brought a motion for a final order noting the respondent in default and seeking relief on parenting, child support, and property division.

The respondent had failed to comply with previous orders to file materials.

The court refused to grant further extensions and proceeded with the motion.

The court made a temporary order for unsupervised access, ordered the respondent to pay retroactive and ongoing child support in accordance with the Guidelines (rejecting his unpled undue hardship claim), enforced a trust agreement regarding the sale proceeds of their home, and ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for half of the payments she made on a joint loan.

The applicant was awarded $20,000 in costs.

The applicant, Dr. Paul Bastedo, brought a motion to change an existing order to terminate spousal support and a related life insurance obligation, citing his retirement as a material change in circumstances.

The respondent, Ms. Maxine Bastedo, opposed the motion, seeking indefinite spousal support.

The court found that Dr. Bastedo's retirement and the corresponding loss of income constituted a material change not contemplated in the original 1996 order.

Considering the parties' current financial positions, including Ms. Bastedo's substantial pension and assets, and the fact that Dr. Bastedo had paid support for 25 years (8 years beyond the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines' maximum duration for a 17-year marriage), the court determined that Ms. Bastedo no longer required ongoing spousal support to meet her financial needs.

The motion to terminate spousal support was granted, with an additional three months of payments ordered due to insufficient notice of retirement.

The appellants sought a declaration that they owned part of an adjoining property through adverse possession.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that the appellants failed to establish the three-part test for adverse possession: actual possession, intention to exclude the true owner, and effective exclusion.

The appellants' predecessors used the disputed lands only seasonally and intermittently, and failed to demonstrate inconsistent use with the true owner's intended use.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and legal conclusions.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a separation agreement or its spousal support terms and requested significant disclosure.

The respondent husband cross-motioned for an order to bifurcate the application to set aside the agreement from the de novo claims for equalization and spousal support, seeking to limit disclosure until the agreement's validity was determined.

The court dismissed the husband's motion for bifurcation, finding no clear time or expense benefits, and ruled that a Miglin analysis for spousal support requires full financial disclosure regardless of the agreement's initial validity.

The court then made specific orders for disclosure.

The respondent sought to terminate indefinite spousal support, arguing the applicant should be self-sufficient after receiving an equalization payment and engaging in a failed business venture.

The applicant sought continued support for at least four more years.

The court, reviewing the spousal support order under s. 17(7) of the Divorce Act, found a continuing compensatory element due to the applicant's role in the marital farm business.

While acknowledging the applicant's post-separation business decisions contributed to her hardship, the court determined that immediate termination would impair self-sufficiency.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate in three years with a step-down provision, balancing the applicant's need for self-sufficiency in a new career and the respondent's impending retirement.

Following a successful motion to change resulting in the father obtaining primary care of the child after a five‑day trial, the court addressed costs.

Although the mother reasonably contested the change despite an assessor’s recommendation favoring the father, the father remained the successful party.

The court emphasized the civility of the litigation and acknowledged the financial realities faced by both parties.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis but structured to avoid immediate enforcement against the mother due to her limited resources.

The award was fixed but not enforceable through family support enforcement mechanisms or set‑off against ongoing child support.

The father brought a motion to change the primary care of his five-year-old son from the mother in Orillia to himself in London.

The child had previously been in week-about care until starting school.

A privately retained assessor recommended the father assume primary care due to the mother's struggles with effective discipline and controlling her household.

The court weighed the benefits of the father's consistent parenting against the risk of separating the child from his mother and siblings.

The court granted the motion, finding that the child's need for consistent discipline to self-regulate his behaviour was paramount, and ordered primary care to the father with a detailed access schedule for the mother.