Enoch Chukwuebuka Anekwe

This is a comprehensive family law trial decision addressing corollary relief issues in a 19-year marriage between a self-represented applicant and a respondent.

The court determined the parties' incomes for support purposes, imputing $40,000 to the applicant and $262,000 (2020-2022) and $247,716.19 (2023) to the respondent.

The decision addresses complex issues including the respondent's income from an Egyptian business venture, the applicant's earning capacity, child and spousal support obligations, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and the disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent owned an Egyptian villa at separation and rejected claims regarding undisclosed business profits.

Spousal support was ordered on an indefinite basis under the Rule of 65, with set-off child support for two children and proportional section 7 expense contributions.

This motion addressed whether J.A. qualified as a "parent" of the child A.H.H. under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

The court examined the definitions of "settled intention" and "lawful custody" as per Section 74(1) of the CYFSA.

J.A. failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a settled intention to treat A.H.H. as his child, citing vague details, lack of consistent financial support, and failure to assert legal rights during periods of separation.

The court also found that J.A. did not have lawful custody, as there was no court order or written agreement.

Consequently, J.A.'s motion to be declared a parent was dismissed.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial judge's order concerning equalization payment, occupation rent, spousal support, and allocation of liabilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's findings, which were owed deference.

The court also noted the appellant's non-disclosure of significant assets, which further undermined the grounds for appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal and decided to adjourn the matter to a new appeal date.

The appellant was ordered to file a reply factum by a specific deadline and to pay costs thrown away to the respondent.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order to place a child with his biological father, J.W., under an interim supervision order.

The child's parents, K.T. and E.M., sought the child's return to K.T.'s care under an interim supervision order.

The court found the child was at risk of emotional harm due to exposure to adult conflict between the parents.

However, given that the parents were now living separately, the court determined that the child could be adequately protected by an interim supervision order returning the child to K.T.'s care, with terms reflecting the Society's notice of motion.

The Society's request for placement with J.W. was dismissed, and the child was returned to the mother, K.T., under supervision.

The applicant sought an order for the respondent to vacate the family home or for its sale, shared decision-making authority, and increased unsupervised parenting time.

The respondent opposed and sought continued supervised contact and child support, also claiming a valid marriage or unjust enrichment for a trust claim on the home.

The court found the respondent's claims regarding marriage validity and unjust enrichment lacked sufficient merit to prevent the sale of the home.

The court ordered the sale of the home, with proceeds held in trust, and ordered the applicant to pay child support upon the respondent vacating.

While declining shared decision-making at this stage, the court increased the applicant's parenting time but maintained supervised exchanges and imposed conditions related to alcohol consumption and anger management, pending further review or an OCL report.