Elizabeth Julien-Wilson

In a bifurcated trial addressing outstanding financial issues following a 2012 separation, the court determined equalization, child support, and spousal support.

Both parties had significant credibility issues.

The court rejected the respondent's expert valuation of the applicant's law practice due to material information deficiencies and lack of disclosure.

Income was imputed to the respondent based on minimum wage, as he unreasonably persisted in unremunerative employment.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support arrears and a modest equalization payment, while the applicant was ordered to pay time-limited, non-compensatory spousal support.

The net result was a payment owed to the applicant, to be satisfied from trust funds held from the sale of the matrimonial home.

A dispute arose between separated parents regarding the capacity of their adult daughter and the appropriate guardianship arrangements under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

Following court‑ordered capacity assessments, the court found the individual incapable of managing property and incapable of making personal care decisions related to health and safety, though capable in other personal care domains.

The court considered expert evidence, the individual's expressed wishes, and competing guardianship plans.

It concluded that the father and paternal aunt were suitable joint guardians of property and limited guardians of the person for health and safety decisions.

The court emphasized respect for autonomy, least‑restrictive intervention, and ongoing opportunities for the individual to maintain family relationships.