Donna Guidolin

Two co-owners sought relief under the Partition Act regarding two severed parcels of land originally purchased jointly.

The parties disputed their respective beneficial interests arising from alleged unequal financial contributions decades earlier.

The court held that the respondent failed to prove unequal ownership and therefore the parties were presumed to hold equal interests as tenants‑in‑common.

Given the separate nature of the parcels and the long-standing use arrangements, the court vested one parcel entirely in each party rather than ordering a sale or unequal division.

The applicant father sought to enforce a costs order made on March 20, 2013, in the amount of $2,000.00 against the respondent mother.

The mother sought to change the costs order pursuant to Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules, arguing she had inadequate notice and was unable to present evidence regarding her ability to pay.

The court found that the mother was properly represented by counsel at the time the costs order was made, that counsel failed to file submissions and attend court without proper notice to the court, and that the mother could not now claim lack of knowledge or notice.

The court declined to change the order and confirmed the mother must pay $2,000.00 to the father's counsel within 30 days.

A custody and access application brought by the mother against the father regarding their daughter Emily.

The mother sought sole custody, no access to the father, child support, a restraining order, and permission to travel and obtain identity documents.

The father cross-applied for custody or alternatively reasonable access.

The court found no credible evidence of sexual or physical abuse by the mother's new partner despite the father's allegations.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, denied all access to the father, rescinded child support arrears, and imposed a restraining order.

The decision turned on the father's uncontrolled anger, hostile behavior, and unreliability as a witness.