Erin MacKenzie

The appellant attempted to selectively accept portions of the respondent's settlement offer that favored him while rejecting other essential terms, relying on a severability clause that had been included in error.

The motion judge refused to enforce the partial acceptance, finding it would be blatantly unfair to allow the appellant to cherry-pick favorable terms while requiring the respondent to continue litigating.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision, finding no error warranting interference.

The Applicant sought interim custody, child and spousal support, release of matrimonial home proceeds, and disclosure.

The Respondent sought temporary sole or shared custody, primary residence in Florida, supervised access for the Applicant, and a s. 30 assessment.

The court granted the Applicant temporary sole custody, established a parenting schedule allowing the child to travel to Florida one week per month, ordered the Respondent to pay $75,000 monthly in temporary child and spousal support, and released the net proceeds of the matrimonial home to the Applicant.

The Respondent's motion for a s. 30 assessment was dismissed without prejudice, and his request for a sealing order was adjourned for further submissions.

The court also ordered the Respondent to provide comprehensive financial disclosure.

The applicant, Julia Michelle Bolland, brought a motion seeking a declaration that Ontario has jurisdiction over her family law proceeding, including divorce, custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, David Drew Bolland, opposed this and brought a cross-motion to dismiss Julia's application, arguing she did not meet the 12-month residency requirement for divorce in Ontario and that Florida was the appropriate forum.

The court found that Julia was ordinarily resident in Ontario, that the child Lincoln's habitual residence was Ontario, and that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the support and property claims.

The respondent failed to demonstrate that Florida was a more appropriate forum under forum non conveniens principles.

The applicant's motion was granted, and the respondent's motion was dismissed.