Fowler Byrne

The applicant sought an interim order for equal parenting time with the child of the marriage.

The parties, married in 2010 and separated in 2022, continued to reside in the matrimonial home with extended family.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it was premature given unresolved issues like housing and support, and that mediation should precede a formal order.

The court found the affidavit evidence conflicting and declined to make credibility findings at this early stage.

The motion for a 50/50 parenting schedule was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the maintenance of the status quo and the need for the parties to resolve broader issues through mediation and a full case conference.

Specific interim orders were made to guide parental conduct and communication.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an advance towards her disbursements and an advance to be credited against her future equalization payment.

The respondent father had a complex corporate structure and had failed to provide full financial disclosure, including the value of a family trust.

The court drew adverse inferences regarding the value of certain properties due to the father's non-disclosure.

Applying the test for an advance against equalization, the court found the mother had a clear entitlement and a need for the funds, ordering the father to pay a further advance of $300,000 from the proceeds of a recent property sale.

Peel Condominium Corporation No. 223 (PCC 223) commenced an action seeking possession and sale of a unit owned by Lai-Ming Tung due to alleged default in common expenses, claiming a valid lien.

PCC 223 asserted that Ms. Tung's acts or omissions, specifically regarding the disconnection and replacement of her HVAC unit during roof repairs, caused damage to common elements and incurred extra costs.

The court found that the expenses claimed by PCC 223 were not attributable to Ms. Tung's acts or omissions.

The evidence did not support the claim that Ms. Tung failed to properly disconnect her HVAC unit or that her new HVAC installation caused damage justifying the charges.

Consequently, the court determined there was no valid basis for the lien.

The action was dismissed, and the lien was ordered to be discharged.

The Respondent Mother brought a motion seeking various orders, including retroactive child support, amendment of parenting orders, and costs.

The parenting issues were resolved, and a contempt motion was not pursued.

The primary issue for the court was the determination of retroactive child support.

The court found that retroactive child support was warranted from March 1, 2018, three years prior to the Mother's Answer, based on the Father's failure to provide timely disclosure and his higher actual income.

The Mother was awarded $31,930 in retroactive child support and $6,000 in costs.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought an order for the respondents to vacate a property owned by the deceased and to pay occupation rent.

The respondents, the deceased's son, his wife, and daughter, had been residing in the property since the deceased's death and refused to vacate.

The respondents' request for an adjournment was denied due to a history of delay and lack of substantive evidence.

The court found the respondents were unjustly enriched by their occupancy without payment and ordered them to pay occupation rent, calculated from April 1, 2020, to April 30, 2023, with a reduction for the applicant's own delay in prosecuting the matter.

The daughter was not held monetarily responsible.

The court also ordered vacant possession and awarded costs to the applicant.

This is a sentencing decision for Salman Ahmed, who was convicted of second-degree murder.

The primary issue was determining the period of parole ineligibility, which carries a mandatory life sentence with a general 10-year ineligibility period, extendable up to 25 years under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought 25 years, while the defence argued for 12 years.

The court considered the jury's recommendation (which was given little weight), the violent nature and circumstances of the carjacking and murder, and the offender's character, including his youth, first-time offender status, and challenging background, balanced against his poor conduct in custody.

The court ultimately imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 18 years, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the use of firearms and forcible confinement.

The accused, Peyton Brown, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained during an investigative detention, search, and subsequent arrest, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charges included possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and other related offences.

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds to suspect the individuals were connected to a criminal offence involving a firearm, justifying the investigative detention.

Furthermore, the court found that the firearm was observed prior to any pat-down search, and even if a search had occurred, it would have been reasonable for officer safety.

Consequently, no Charter violations were found, and the application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking temporary sole decision-making responsibility for the child's education and health, and primary residence in India, varying a previous order.

The respondent mother opposed and implicitly sought the child's return to Canada, but did not bring a formal motion for this relief.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's relocation and inability to attend school.

Applying the test from Thomas v Wohleber, the court granted the father temporary sole decision-making authority for education and health, and primary parenting time in India, finding it to be in the child's best interests to ensure continued schooling and access to counselling.

The court retained jurisdiction as the child's habitual residence had not changed.

The accused, Mr. David Morias, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained during a search and seizure, alleging violations of his rights under sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded a violation of s. 10(b) rights (right to counsel) due to an 8-hour delay in facilitating a call to counsel, but argued against exclusion under s. 24(2).

The court found no violation of s. 8 (unreasonable search/seizure) as the search warrant was validly issued and executed, and no violation of s. 7 (excessive force) as the police's use of force was deemed reasonable given the circumstances.

Despite the serious s. 10(b) breach, the court dismissed the application to exclude evidence under s. 24(2), finding that its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, primarily because the evidence was not causally connected to the breach and was reliably obtained via a valid warrant.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking $250,000 for interim disbursements and a $500,000 advance on an equalization payment.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing abuse of process and inability to pay, and objected to the wife's hearsay evidence regarding his asset values.

The court found no abuse of process, noting the husband's significant delay in providing financial disclosure.

The court awarded the wife $75,000 for interim disbursements and $50,000 as an advance on equalization, adjourning the remainder of the motion to allow the husband to provide outstanding disclosure, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce an unsigned offer to settle in a family law proceeding.

The respondent father, who suffers from cognitive and visual impairments due to multiple motor vehicle accidents, argued he never instructed his former counsel to accept the offer.

The court found that no final settlement was reached because the father's counsel explicitly indicated he needed to review the documents with his client in person before signing.

Furthermore, the court held that even if an agreement had been reached, it would not enforce it due to the father's cognitive disability and the mother's failure to provide complete financial disclosure at the time of the alleged settlement.

The mother's motion was dismissed.

The offender was found guilty of one global count of sexual assault and one global count of invitation to sexual touching involving his biological daughter, aged 11-14, over a four-year period.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the breach of trust and vulnerability of the victim.

The offender, a 65-year-old first-time offender, received a four-year concurrent sentence for sexual assault and two years for invitation to sexual touching, along with ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, no-contact order, and SOIRA registration.

Following the death of the applicant in a family law proceeding, the Estate sought to continue the application for equalization and compel the respondent to produce expert reports valuing her corporate assets.

The respondent moved for security for costs, arguing the Estate was insolvent and the litigation was primarily driven by the Estate's counsel to recover unpaid fees.

The court ordered the Estate to post $5,000 in security for costs, finding that the Estate resided outside Ontario and had no assets in the province.

The court also ordered the respondent to produce expert reports to substantiate the corporate values claimed in her net family property statement.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought competing motions within a motion to change.

The mother sought a private parenting capacity assessment under section 30 of the CLRA, while the father sought a finding of non-compliance against the mother for failing to facilitate his parenting time, as well as orders for OCL involvement and reconciliation therapy.

The court found that both parents had contributed to the high-conflict dynamic and that the mother had failed to make best efforts to ensure the children attended parenting time.

However, the court declined to order reconciliation therapy without an expert recommendation, noting the potential risk to the children's well-being.

The court ordered a private section 30 assessment and imposed a gradual reintegration schedule to resume the children's contact with the father.

The appellant appealed a family arbitration award dealing with property, spousal support, and child support.

The Superior Court of Justice determined that the standard of review for family arbitration appeals is the Housen standard.

The court upheld the arbitrator's use of hindsight evidence for property valuation and his imputation of income to the respondent.

However, the court found the arbitrator erred by including a statute-barred debt in the appellant's net family property, by failing to provide adequate reasons for awarding lump sum rather than indefinite periodic spousal support, and by exceeding his jurisdiction in ordering the parties to refile tax returns.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the court substituting an order for indefinite periodic spousal support and adjusting the equalization payment.

The applicant, a cyber-insurer, sought relief from forfeiture under s. 462.42 of the Criminal Code to recover funds paid out to two insured victims of a ransomware attack.

The offender's cryptocurrency had been seized and forfeited.

The court held that the insurer had a valid interest in the forfeited property limited to the amount of Bitcoin paid as ransom by one of the victims, which had been erroneously omitted from the sentencing restitution order.

The court dismissed the claim for further restitution and for relief from forfeiture regarding other insurance payouts, such as consultation fees and lost profits, finding they did not constitute an interest in the specific forfeited property.

Two consolidated applications regarding the ownership and sale of a residential property.

The applicants, Kuldeep Gill and the Estate of Amarjit Gill, sought a declaration of 100% ownership based on resulting or constructive trust, arguing the respondent Karnail Gill's initial contribution was a loan.

Karnail Gill sought partition and sale of the property, recognizing his registered one-third interest as a tenant in common.

The court dismissed the trust claims, finding Karnail contributed to the purchase and upkeep of the property, and ordered the property to be listed for sale with the proceeds divided equally among the three registered owners, subject to adjustments for mortgage, taxes, and rental income.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the corporate defendant and its director shortly after the director made an assignment in bankruptcy.

Years later, after the trustee was discharged but the director remained an undischarged bankrupt, the plaintiff obtained default judgment against the director without notice.

The court held that commencing the action during the bankruptcy stay was a curable irregularity, not a nullity, and the stay lifted when the trustee was discharged.

However, the court set aside the default judgment because the plaintiff failed to serve the motion materials on the director before she was noted in default, contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The director was ordered to attend an examination in aid of execution on behalf of the corporate defendant only.

The father brought a motion seeking a 2/2/3 interim parenting schedule, while the mother brought a cross-motion for child support, sale of the matrimonial home, and sole decision-making.

The court dismissed the mother's motion as the issues had not been conferenced and lacked urgency.

The court denied the father's request for a 2/2/3 schedule, finding that his unpredictable work schedule and reliance on extended family did not support it.

The court ordered a parenting schedule that maintained the pre-separation status quo, with the children residing primarily with the mother and the father having alternate weekends and Wednesday evenings.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim parenting order after the respondent father withheld their six-year-old child following a visit.

The mother had previously obtained an ex parte order for the child's immediate return.

The court found compelling reasons to deviate from the pre-separation status quo due to the father's criminal charges, lack of suitable living arrangements, and poor judgment in withholding the child.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the mother and granted the father unsupervised daytime parenting time, with no overnight visits until he secures suitable accommodations.