Frédéric P. Huard

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 applicant brought a motion to change a 2009 final order regarding equalization, alleging a mistake in the valuation of her pension.

The applicant claimed her actuary was provided incorrect information regarding her pension buyback status, resulting in an overvaluation of her pension and a lower equalization payment from the respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the pension administrator provided the incorrect information to the actuary, and concluding that the mistake was not mutual and did not negate the common intention of the parties at the time of the settlement.

Following an eighteen-day family law trial where the applicant's claims to set aside domestic contracts were dismissed, the respondent sought full recovery costs of $102,603.73.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, finding the respondent made an offer triggering Rule 18(14) consequences.

The court rejected allegations of bad faith but found both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour, particularly the respondent's failure to provide full financial disclosure regarding his businesses.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $53,750, reflecting partial indemnity prior to the respondent's offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, with a reduction for the respondent's disclosure failures.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order regarding custody, child support, and spousal support.

He sought to change the primary residence of one child to himself, reduce his imputed income of $100,000 based on new financial disclosure, and increase the applicant mother's imputed income.

The court granted the change in primary residence but deferred the effective date to trial.

The court dismissed the motions to vary the imputed incomes, finding the father's new financial disclosure contradictory and lacking credibility, and the mother's income accurately reflected her circumstances.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and an amending agreement under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging lack of financial disclosure, duress, and unconscionability.

The court found that while the respondent failed to provide full financial disclosure regarding his businesses, the applicant understood the agreements, did not diligently pursue disclosure, and received substantial benefits.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to set aside either agreement, upholding both domestic contracts.

Consequently, the applicant's corollary claims for equalization of net family property, retroactive child support, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support were dismissed.

The respondent's claim for child support was also dismissed as the agreements were upheld.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary order to place the child in the care of the mother under the Society's supervision pending the final disposition of the application.

The child had been in the temporary care of the father since apprehension.

The court granted the motion, emphasizing the statutory requirement to return the child to the custodial parent if safe, the benefit of reuniting the child with siblings, and concerns regarding the father's pending criminal sentencing.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking spousal support and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The request for sale was abandoned due to lack of court jurisdiction as the husband was the sole owner.

The applicant husband opposed spousal support, citing short cohabitation, the wife's extended residence in Africa during the marriage, alleged non-disclosure of bank accounts, and her ownership of properties in Africa.

The court found that the marriage had an economic impact on the wife's career and that the husband had a financial obligation due to an immigration sponsorship agreement.

The court ordered the husband to pay spousal support of $800 per month, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, to meet the wife's transitional needs and prevent reliance on social assistance.

The applicant mother brought a motion to establish that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine custody and access of the parties' three-year-old child.

The respondent father brought a motion to stay the application, arguing that a prior Québec order ratifying a 2009 custody agreement gave Québec exclusive jurisdiction.

The court found that the 2009 agreement and subsequent Québec order were null and void because the parties had reconciled for nearly two years after signing it.

The court held that the child was habitually resident in Ontario, or concurrently in Ontario and Québec, and that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

The mother's motion was granted and the father's motion to stay was dismissed.