Hendrik Keesmaat

The applicants, a child's great uncle and his partner, sought an order to dispense with the consent of the biological parents (respondents) for the adoption of the child.

The child had resided with the applicants for over three years, during which time the biological parents had minimal to no involvement.

The court granted the application, finding that dispensing with consent was in the child's best interests, considering the child's stable placement with the applicants and the lack of relationship with the biological parents.

The decision emphasized the strict "best interests" test for adoption, which is distinct from custody and access proceedings due to the final and irrevocable nature of adoption orders.

The applicant mother sought leave to appeal a temporary order that granted the respondent father overnight parenting time on Tuesdays.

The applicant argued the motions judge erred in her use of a custody and access assessment report.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the motions judge properly considered the assessment report under the Children's Law Reform Act and that the applicant failed to meet the test for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion to change a spousal support order, seeking an increase in quantum, and further moved for an order for production and disclosure of financial records, and for the respondent to pay approximately $37,000 for past and future accounting and legal fees under Rule 24(12).

The respondent sought termination of support.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions, finding that the requested financial disclosure was not relevant to the respondent's means for spousal support and was disproportionate to the issues at stake.

The court also declined to order the respondent to fund the applicant's expert witness or legal fees, noting the applicant had sufficient assets.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring the appellant corporation to pay the respondents' interim legal fees and disbursements in an oppression remedy application pursuant to s. 249(4) of the Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision to order payment of unpaid and future accounts at face value without an approval process, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the motions judge erred in ordering the reimbursement of accounts already paid by the respondents, as there was no evidence that failing to reimburse those specific amounts would preclude them from pursuing their claims.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking interpretation of a 2008 consent order governing child support, extraordinary expenses, and disclosure obligations.

The court determined that table child support and non‑medical special expenses were non‑variable until July 1, 2011 but that medical expenses under s.7 of the Child Support Guidelines were to be shared proportionately beginning in 2008 based on the parties’ 2007 incomes.

The court found the respondent father had failed to provide timely financial disclosure and recalculated child support based on proper guideline income, rejecting claimed deductions not permitted under Schedule III.

Arrears were ordered for table support, extracurricular expenses, and medical expenses, and ongoing monthly contributions were set for extraordinary and medical expenses.

The order also required ongoing annual income disclosure and confirmed the mother’s authority to make final decisions regarding s.7 activities if the parties cannot agree.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent a constructive trust in a residential home and a boat following the end of their 13-year common law relationship.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of unjust enrichment but varied the order on consent to reflect a fixed amount of $97,000 rather than a percentage interest.

The respondent's cross-appeal seeking a constructive trust in the appellant's business was dismissed, as she had been appropriately compensated as an employee.

The court ordered the $97,000 interest to be secured against the residence and directed its sale if the judgment was not paid by a specified date.