Elissa C.M. Boyle

The mother (P.P.) brought a motion seeking interim changes to a consent final order, requesting sole custody and decision-making authority for the child, A.B., and suspension of the father's (J.J.S.) access.

The motion was based on the father's erratic behaviour, including missed access visits, withholding the child from school, refusal to consent to a psychoeducational assessment, and non-cooperation with investigations by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS) and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found a material change in circumstances, granted the mother interim sole custody and decision-making, suspended the father's access pending his cooperation with investigations, and ordered financial disclosure.

Costs were awarded to the mother due to the father's unreasonable conduct.

The appellant claimed an interest in the increase in equity in the respondent's home during their cohabitation, seeking a share of a $410,000 increase.

The trial judge dismissed the action and awarded costs to the respondent.

On appeal, the court allowed the appeal in part, awarding the appellant $5,000 plus interest, representing a one-time mortgage contribution.

The appeal addressed primarily a constructive trust claim, on which the respondent was successful on the main issue.

The appellant appealed from the dismissal of her application for an interest in the increase in equity of a home owned by the respondent during their six-year common law relationship.

The appellant claimed unjust enrichment based on contributions to living expenses, home maintenance and repairs, and a $5,000 lump sum payment toward the mortgage.

The application judge found no joint family venture and held that the shared expense arrangement provided a juristic reason for retaining the $5,000 payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the proprietary claim but allowed the appeal regarding the $5,000 payment, finding the application judge erred in characterizing it as part of the shared expense arrangement and ordering its return with interest.

The father brought a motion to change a 2009 order that granted no access to his son Adrian.

The father sought to establish a material change in circumstances since the trial order, proposing a graduated return to access beginning with supervised visits.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there had been no material change.

The court found that the father's evidence of not using non-prescription drugs, having no new criminal charges, and attending three parenting sessions fell far short of establishing a material change in circumstances.

The court noted the father showed no insight into his past conduct, accepted no responsibility, and demonstrated no change in his attitudes or behaviour.

The motion was dismissed.