Douglas R. Thomas

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment granting provisional consent to sever a property to create a new residential infill lot.

The appellant argued the severance would change the nature of the neighbourhood and not conform to existing zoning.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and municipal official plans, and represented good land use planning by utilizing existing infrastructure in a built-up area.

The appeal was dismissed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant was the successful party in a motion/trial of an issue to determine the date of separation.

The applicant sought costs of $14,245, while the respondent suggested an award of $3,500 to $4,000.

The court found the applicant's claimed hours to be excessive and disproportionate to the single issue before the court.

Applying the factors in Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive, payable by the respondent.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over the date of separation for the purposes of the Family Law Act, which directly impacted the applicant wife's claim for equalization of net family property.

The applicant argued for an April 2014 separation date, while the respondent husband claimed January 2012, which would have rendered the equalization claim statute-barred.

The court meticulously reviewed documentary evidence and corroborating affidavits, including income tax returns, CPP correspondence, matrimonial home arrangements, social activities, and bill payments.

The respondent's assertion of a confidential separation agreement was found incredible due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The court ultimately concluded that the date of separation was April 2014, consistent with the applicant's position.

Following the breakdown of a marriage with two children, the court determined unresolved issues relating to equalization of net family property, child support, spousal support, and various financial claims.

The court addressed whether mortgage payments made directly by the payor spouse as spousal support should generate a credit upon sale of the matrimonial home and concluded no such credit was warranted under the Family Law Act.

The court also resolved disputes regarding ownership and debt related to a recreational trailer, deductions for property owned at the date of marriage, and arrears of support.

An equalization payment was ordered, arrears of spousal support were fixed, child support obligations were adjusted following a change in the children’s residence, and the respondent’s claim relating to an improperly collapsed RESP was granted.