Emma Brown

The parties cohabited for five and a half years.

Following their separation, the applicant sought a 50% share of the net proceeds from the sale of a property solely owned by the respondent, claiming a resulting or constructive trust, and unjust enrichment.

The respondent sought a 30/70 division in her favour and transitional spousal support.

The court found that the parties' initial and ongoing contributions were unequal, with the respondent contributing significantly more.

The court ordered the net proceeds divided 30% to the applicant and 70% to the respondent.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed as she failed to establish need or compensatory entitlement.

The applicant brought a short motion seeking interim orders to vary existing final orders regarding decision-making authority for a child and to restrict communications between the parties, as well as leave to amend pleadings.

The respondent sought an adjournment.

The court found significant non-compliance by both parties with the Central South and Provincial Notices to the Profession regarding affidavit page limits, exhibit limits, double spacing, and timely uploading of materials to CaseLines.

Emphasizing the importance of adhering to practice directions and the proper allocation of court resources, the court adjourned the motion to a long motion, providing specific directions for future filings and reserving costs.

The respondent successfully moved to set aside an ex parte restraining order previously granted to the applicant.

The court found that the applicant acted unreasonably in bringing the initial motion without notice and failing to provide a full evidentiary record.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $2,440.80.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $2,000, noting the applicant's unreasonable behaviour warranted an award somewhat higher than partial indemnity.

The respondent, Edward Alan Stocker, brought a motion to set aside a restraining order previously granted without notice to the applicant, Laura Lynn Boyle.

The parties, common-law spouses, were living separately in their co-owned home.

Stocker argued the order was based on false facts and used as a tactic for exclusive possession.

The court found that on a full record, Boyle did not have reasonable grounds to fear for her safety, and her initial affidavit lacked full disclosure.

The court emphasized that ex parte restraining orders should expire at the next hearing, shifting the burden back to the applicant to re-establish entitlement.

The restraining order was set aside.

Father sought an urgent motion for interim sole custody of the parties' young daughter, alleging serious concerns regarding mother's ability to appropriately and safely parent.

Mother sought an interim joint custody order with a shared residential schedule.

The court found that while there were verified concerns regarding mother's home maintenance and supervision practices documented by Children's Aid Society, the most recent independent evidence from the child's physician and the transferee protection agency indicated stabilization since mother's relocation to reside with her father.

The court granted an interim joint custody order with a structured shared residential arrangement, requiring both parents to complete parenting programming and mother to engage in additional supports recommended by the protection agency.