Emma Katz

In this family law motion, the respondent sought an order for partition and sale of a property held as a tenancy in common with the applicant.

The parties were former cohabitants who never married and disputed the length of cohabitation and date of separation.

The respondent sought to sell the investment property, citing loss of trust and alleged mismanagement by the applicant.

The applicant opposed the sale, arguing it would cause financial hardship and negatively affect the best interests of her 12-year-old daughter.

The court found the respondent had a prima facie right to seek sale under the Partition Act and that the applicant had not established malice, vexatiousness, or oppression.

However, the court imposed a three-month delay before listing to protect the child's stability and well-being.

The court also ordered that net proceeds be held in trust pending further court order.

The respondent father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with the two younger children (aged 10 and 14) and to remove supervision.

The applicant mother opposed immediate overnights but agreed to increased supervised time.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) provided the children's views, which favored a gradual increase in parenting time with continued supervision, especially given the respondent's mental health history.

The court adopted a graduated schedule, increasing unsupervised time incrementally, but denied the respondent's request for immediate alternating weekends or overnights, emphasizing the children's best interests and their preference for a slower pace.

The applicant was deemed the successful party and awarded costs.

The respondent father sought a s. 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act or, alternatively, multi-faceted family therapy.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction as all issues had been resolved by Minutes of Settlement, which included a dispute resolution mechanism.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the parties had settled all issues and there was no active proceeding before the court.

The court further noted that even if it had jurisdiction, a s. 30 assessment was not warranted given the extensive prior professional involvement and the intrusive, costly nature of such assessments.

The applicants, a same-sex couple, sought a declaration of parentage and primary residence of a child born to the respondents.

The parties had an informal agreement that the applicants would raise the child, but the respondents sought the child's return after four months.

The court found that the statutory requirements for a declaration of parentage under s. 13 of the Children's Law Reform Act were not met, as there was no pre-conception intent for all four parties to be parents.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the applicants primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility, with gradually increasing parenting time for the respondents.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child support, spousal support, and financial disclosure following a 2017 final order.

The respondent had unilaterally reduced her child support payments to a set-off amount, arguing that the shared parenting schedule triggered section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found the respondent in breach of the final order, which clearly mandated full table support, and ordered her to pay $36,124 in support arrears.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide outstanding financial disclosure, including Notices of Assessment and documentation for business expenses, while dismissing the applicant's claims for older business records and certain section 7 expenses.

The applicant mother sought costs following a successful trial where she obtained sole custody, supervised access, and a higher imputed income for the respondent father, exceeding her offer to settle.

The respondent father had engaged in bad faith conduct throughout the application, including refusing to comply with Family Law Rules and court orders, claiming to be a "sovereign," and failing to provide financial disclosure.

The court found the applicant was entitled to full recovery costs due to beating her offer to settle and the respondent's bad faith conduct, fixing costs at $36,122.72.

The mother sought sole custody, child support, and imputation of income against the father, who claimed to be a 'sovereign' and disputed the court's jurisdiction.

The father refused to participate meaningfully in the proceedings or provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the mother sole custody, noting the child's special needs and the father's sporadic, disruptive involvement.

The father was granted supervised access subject to strict conditions.

Due to his failure to provide income information, the court imputed the father's income at $250,000 based on his business interests and a previous child support order, ordering him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.