Eva Iacobelli

The parties separated after a 30-year relationship and have two adult children: one in university and one with a profound developmental disability.

The court determined the parties' respective incomes for child support purposes, imputing corporate pre-tax income and personal expenses to the respondent father.

The court applied a budgetary approach under s. 3(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine child support for the disabled adult child, factoring in his ODSP benefits.

The court also resolved disputes over the control of the children's RESP and RDSP accounts, retrospective and prospective section 7 expenses, and the applicant mother's request for a restraining order and communication protocol, which were dismissed.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal two orders from a trial judge concerning divorce, property equalization, spousal support, and costs.

While the appellant demonstrated intention and explained the delay, the court found the proposed appeal lacked merit, as it largely reiterated issues already addressed at trial and presented unsubstantiated allegations.

Consequently, the motion for an extension of time to appeal the October 8, 2019 order was dismissed.

The respondent's cross-motion for service by email was granted, with the condition that material also be sent to the appellant's post office box.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant and respondent cohabited and signed a domestic contract establishing a separate property regime.

After separation, the appellant sought a constructive trust over the respondent's home, arguing the contract was unenforceable because his signature was not witnessed as required by s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the strict witnessing requirements of s. 55(1) may be relaxed where the contract was executed without oppression, with full disclosure, and independent legal advice.

The court also rejected arguments that the contract was ambiguous or had been repudiated.

Following a long motion in a family law proceeding where success was divided, the court considered the costs submissions of the parties.

The applicant wife was more successful overall, having secured interim spousal support and protective orders regarding property, though the respondents succeeded on the sale of the home and dismissing a motion to strike pleadings.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as there was no bad faith or unreasonable conduct.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The applicant spouse brought an interim motion in family litigation seeking various remedies including striking the respondents’ pleadings, interim spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and restraining orders.

A co-owner brother of the respondent spouse brought a cross-motion seeking partition and sale of the jointly owned property under the Partition Act.

The court held that the evidentiary record raised multiple triable issues concerning ownership contributions, occupation rent, and mortgage liabilities.

The court ordered the matrimonial home to be listed for sale but directed that the net proceeds be held in trust pending trial.

Interim spousal support of $1,500 per month was ordered and the husband’s share of certain trust funds was allocated toward support.

Claims regarding child support, final distribution of sale proceeds, and other financial disputes were reserved for trial.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application to vary support.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in rejecting the appellant's medical evidence, which indicated he was unable to work full-time.

Given the conflicting evidence regarding the appellant's ability to work, the motion judge should have ordered the trial of an issue.

The appeal was allowed, the order set aside, and the trial of an issue ordered.