Gibrian Malicki-Sanchez

The court considered a motion by the father for equal parenting time or, alternatively, a step-up schedule leading to equal time by September 2025.

The parties have two children, ages 13 and nearly 15, who have lived primarily with the mother since separation.

The court reviewed the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act, including the children’s views and preferences, the history of care, and the need for stability.

The court found that the children’s current schedule meets their needs and that a forced change would not be in their best interests.

The court ordered that the children continue to reside primarily with the mother, with parenting time for the father to be increased in accordance with the recommendations of a reintegration therapist, and adjourned the motion for review after several months.

The applicant and respondents are sisters who jointly own three properties as tenants in common.

Following a prior order that the properties be sold with no right of first refusal, the parties could not agree on the sale process.

The Master determined the listing agents, the process for setting list prices, the duration of listings, the coordination of pre-listing cleanup and repairs, and established a blind bidding process to ensure fairness in the event one of the co-owners elected to bid on the properties.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering him to vacate a property so the respondent landlord could occupy it for personal use.

The appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the parties had an agreement of purchase and sale, not a tenancy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction to determine if the Residential Tenancies Act applied and that its factual findings of a tenancy and good faith requirement for possession were reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness regarding late-filed evidence.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of the applicant's motion for the sale of a home and to strike the respondent's pleadings.

The respondent, having been successful, sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant, who was unsuccessful, also filed a costs outline.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the respondent entitled to costs and fixed them at $10,000, rejecting the respondent's higher claim and the applicant's implicit request for costs.

The payment of costs was deferred until the trial or other resolution of the file.