G. Edward Lloyd

The applicant wife brought a motion for the partition and sale of four rural properties, including a farm and a woodlot, owned by the parties during their 25-year marriage.

The respondent husband opposed the sale of the farm and woodlot, arguing they were "farms" under the Family Law Act and thus protected from sale under section 11 prior to a final equalization determination.

The court found that while the farm was a "farm" and the woodlot was a "business" under the Act, section 11 does not operate as a complete bar to partition and sale.

Balancing the applicant's prima facie right to partition against the likelihood of section 9 remedies, the court ordered both properties listed for sale immediately, noting the farm's lack of profitability and the applicant's right to realize the highest market value.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a temporary order for week-about parenting time and shared decision-making.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the status quo of primary residence with her, joint decision-making with a veto, and child support.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for a week-about schedule, finding it impractical and not in the child's best interests due to excessive travel time.

The court granted the respondent's cross-motion, maintaining the status quo, granting her a decision-making veto, and ordering the applicant to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

The parties separated after an 18-year marriage.

The applicant sought spousal support, child support for two adult children, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory and needs-based spousal support, ordering $551 per month retroactively.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the adult children's hostile conduct relieved him of his child support obligations, finding no unilateral termination of the relationship.

For equalization, the court preferred the applicant's valuation of chattels and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $168,001.58.

To satisfy this obligation, the court ordered a $150,000 pension transfer (plus tax gross-up) to the applicant, with the remainder to be paid from the respondent's equity upon the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

Following a 9-day family law trial, the court ruled on costs.

The applicant had claimed $450,000 and multiple extraordinary remedies but was only awarded $83,851.40 for an unequal division of net family property.

The court found the applicant had severely over-litigated the matter, unnecessarily extending a 1.5-day trial into 9 days.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court apportioned costs based on success, awarding the applicant 16% of her costs and the respondent 84% of his costs.

This resulted in a net costs award of $81,262.47 payable by the applicant to the respondent, which was set off against the trial judgment.

Following a four-year marriage and an eight-year relationship, the applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(h) of the Family Law Act.

The parties had engaged in a joint venture to purchase a dairy farm, for which the applicant contributed $230,000 from the sale of her home, while the respondent put up his solely-owned properties as collateral but had over $205,000 of his mortgages paid off.

The court found that an equal division would be unconscionable given the stark contrast in proportional loss and gain.

The applicant was awarded one-half of the increase in value of the respondent's properties during the marriage, resulting in a net payment of $83,851.40.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change a 2013 consent order to terminate his $1,500 monthly spousal support obligation and life insurance requirement, citing his voluntary retirement at age 65 and resulting income reduction.

The court found his retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, recognizing the responding party's compensatory claims from a 25-year marriage where she stayed home to raise four children, the court declined to terminate support entirely.

Instead, spousal support was reduced to $1.00 per month effective July 1, 2016, and the life insurance obligation was maintained to secure potential future support.

The respondent brought a motion while having an outstanding costs order of approximately $8,000 from a previous appearance.

The applicant argued that the respondent's failure to pay the costs order should bar his current motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the respondent had the financial means to pay the order but chose not to do so.

Applying the three-step test for non-compliance, the court declined to exercise its discretion to exempt the respondent from sanctions.

The respondent's motion was dismissed without prejudice to his right to return the motion for hearing upon payment of the outstanding costs.

The applicants, lessors of a heritage property operating as a hotel, brought an application to determine the repair obligations under a commercial lease.

The lessors argued the lessee was responsible for all repairs, while the lessee argued the lessors were responsible for external repairs.

The court applied principles of contract interpretation and found that the lease explicitly excluded 'external walls' from the lessee's repair obligations.

The court further determined that, in the context of this specific building, 'external walls' included the mansard roofs, dormer windows, externally exposed chimneys, soffits, and fascia, making their repair the responsibility of the lessors.

The applicant sought full recovery of her actual costs for a motion, relying on the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The respondent did not file a response.

The court reviewed recent appellate jurisprudence on family law costs, noting the confusion caused by the decisions in Berta and Forrester.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable, the court awarded the applicant her actual costs of $11,829.96.

The respondent brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel and for equal parenting time.

The applicant brought a counter-motion for interim custody, access, and child support.

The court dismissed the motion to remove counsel.

Finding that the applicant was the primary parent prior to separation, the court granted interim custody to the applicant and specified access to the respondent, subject to conditions regarding alcohol consumption and smoking.

The respondent was also ordered to pay interim child support and a share of section 7 expenses.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning the custody and primary residence of their two children following the father's military posting to Petawawa.

The mother, who had suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, sought to maintain the children's primary residence in Kingston.

The court found that while both parents were capable, the mother had failed to facilitate contact between the children and the father.

Considering the older child's consistent wish to live with his father and the principle of maximum contact, the court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the father.

The court also ordered the father to pay spousal support and calculated arrears for Section 7 expenses.

Following a successful motion to vary a custody order granting the applicant sole custody, the court considered the respondent’s claim for costs.

The self-represented moving party did not file any submissions on costs despite extensions granted by consent.

The responding party sought recovery for preparation of a trial record, preparation of a draft order, and a prior motion relating to the return of the children.

The court held that the earlier motion costs had been reserved and declined to award them.

However, the court awarded partial costs for preparation of the trial record and draft order.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, and equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding the respondent had abrogated his parental responsibilities and exhibited a cavalier attitude toward court orders.

The court imputed an annual income of $54,000 to the respondent for child support purposes due to his intentional under-employment and failure to disclose financial information.

Furthermore, the court found that the respondent's transfer of the matrimonial home to his father the day before the marriage was a sham, declaring the respondent the legal owner and ordering an equalization payment of $60,532.54 to the applicant, secured by a charge on the property.