Erin Kathleen Crawford

The Applicant sought to set aside a 2006 separation agreement and requested interim spousal support.

The Respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court dismissed the Respondent's summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of fact requiring a trial regarding non-disclosure, unconscionability, duress, and undue influence concerning the separation agreement.

The Applicant's motion for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice due to significant delay and lack of assets to repay if the agreement is upheld.

The court ordered a joint settlement/trial management conference to expedite a trial date.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the return of the parties' seven-year-old child to Los Angeles, California, under the Hague Convention, or, alternatively, interim parenting orders if the child remained in Ontario.

The court applied the "focal point of the child's life" test to determine habitual residence, finding that the child's habitual residence had shifted to Ontario due to the respondent mother's unilateral actions and disappearance, and the child's integration into Ontario life.

Consequently, the Hague Convention did not apply, and Ontario had jurisdiction.

The court also found that even if the Hague Convention applied, exceptions for grave risk of harm and acquiescence would prevent the child's return.

Interim parenting orders were granted, giving the applicant primary residence and major decision-making authority, with other issues adjourned to a case conference.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that granted partial summary judgment in favour of the respondent on the issue of non-disclosure of the appellant Neil's interest in a family trust established by his father Solomon.

The motion judge found that Neil had deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust to Randi when they entered into a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the trust indenture had been disclosed to Randi's counsel and financial advisors, and that Randi was deemed to have knowledge of Neil's interest through her counsel.

The court held that Neil's omission from his financial statements could not transform actual disclosure into non-disclosure under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court also found that even if there had been non-disclosure, the asset was not significant as it constituted excluded property under the Family Law Act.

The claims for conspiracy to commit fraud, deceit, and punitive damages against Solomon were also dismissed as they could not be sustained on the evidence.

The appellant brought a motion for directions seeking an order that motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court be heard by the Court of Appeal.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-motion to adjourn the appeal hearing and extend time to file responding materials.

The motions judge dismissed the motion for directions, finding the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to determine a motion for leave to appeal pending before the Divisional Court.

The cross-motion for extension of time was granted, but the request to adjourn the appeal was denied.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 with disposition deferred to the appeal panel.

The respondents (former husband and his father) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's (former wife's) claim that a Separation Agreement should be set aside due to material misrepresentation and non-disclosure regarding the former husband's beneficial interest in a family trust.

The applicant opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for a preservation order.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the materiality of the non-disclosure.

The court also granted partial summary judgment in favour of the applicant, finding that the former husband deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust and that the former wife did not have actual knowledge of this non-disclosure.

The cross-motion for a preservation order was dismissed.

The remaining issue for trial is the materiality of the non-disclosure and the appropriate remedy.