Emily Kostandoff

The court declared that the transfer of a wheelchair-accessible van from the respondent father to a friend was a fraudulent conveyance void against the applicant mother, a creditor.

The court ordered the proceeds of the subsequent sale of the van to be paid to the mother’s solicitors in trust to secure her equalization and support claims, and awarded costs against both respondents.

The decision reviews the legal framework for fraudulent conveyances and the tracing of proceeds under Ontario law.

The applicant, Dalila Jarvis, sought a stay of a lower court order granting the respondent, Stephen Jarvis, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and authorizing its sale.

The applicant argued she would suffer irreparable harm and that the original order prejudiced the children's best interests.

The respondent opposed the stay, citing his financial insolvency.

The Court of Appeal, applying the three-part test for a stay, found that while the appeal raised a serious question, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as alternative accommodation was possible and the loss of the home was inevitable.

The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who faced insolvency if the sale was delayed.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.

The applicant (mother) brought a motion seeking orders to protect herself and her two children from the respondent (father).

The mother requested the removal of all social media posts, commentary, and videos about them, a prohibition on future postings, and a restraining order.

The father opposed the motion.

The court found the father engaged in cyberbullying and family violence through his online conduct, violating the privacy of the mother and children and contravening the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court granted the mother's requests, ordering the father to remove existing posts, prohibiting future posts, and issuing a restraining order, citing the best interests of the children and the mother's safety concerns.

Costs were awarded to the mother.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent husband opposed the motion, arguing it was not in the children's best interests and would prejudice his arguable claim for exclusive possession.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the respondent had an arguable claim for exclusive possession under the Family Law Act, which would be prejudiced by an immediate sale.

The court also noted that the motion was effectively one for partial summary judgment, which was inappropriate given the interconnectedness of the issues.

The parties' motions concerned child support, daycare expenses, and the removal of belongings following their separation.

The applicant mother sought interim child support and daycare contributions retroactive to the application date.

The respondent father sought to dismiss the application, reduce child support due to alleged undue hardship from supporting his adult children, and have costs owed to him paid directly rather than credited against arrears.

The court dismissed the father's motions, finding no undue hardship, and ordered child support based on his 2017 income.

The court also ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of daycare expenses and directed that the costs owed by the mother be applied as a credit against the father's child support and daycare arrears, prioritizing the children's financial needs.

Orders were also made regarding the removal of the father's belongings and increased access to the youngest child.