Jennifer Anne Klotz

On appeal from a trial judgment ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, the appellant challenged the order on the grounds that the trial judge failed to consider the best interests of the parties' three children who had resided in the home since the 2012 separation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge properly considered the relevant criteria and the best interests of the children.

The respondent had a prima facie right to partition and sale, and the appellant failed to demonstrate malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct that would preclude the sale.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant wife appealed the trial judge's decision upholding a cohabitation agreement that released her claims to spousal support and the determination of income for child support purposes.

The parties had signed the agreement before marriage, whereby the wife released all claims to spousal support.

Upon separation after an 18-year relationship and two children, the wife sought spousal support.

The trial judge upheld the agreement and dismissed her claim.

The Court of Appeal applied the two-stage Miglin test and found no error of law or misapprehension of fact.

The court upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the circumstances of the agreement's execution and its substantial compliance with the Divorce Act objectives.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the husband.

This case involved a motion and cross-motion for interim relief in a family law dispute.

The Mother sought sole interim custody of the child and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, while the Father sought access and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the Mother sole interim custody and exclusive possession, emphasizing the child's best interests and the Mother's financial position.

The Father was granted unsupervised access, as the court found no evidence of danger to the child to warrant denial or supervision.

The Father's request for the sale of the matrimonial home was denied, as his beneficial interest had not yet been established on an interim basis.

The plaintiff sought monetary relief based on unjust enrichment arising from a joint family venture with the defendant, David Brathwaite, and his corporations.

The court found that a joint family venture existed and the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred due to ongoing reconciliation efforts.

However, the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove a disproportionate accumulation of wealth by the defendant linked to her contributions, or to quantify the alleged enrichment and deprivation.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment was dismissed, as was the defendant's counterclaim.

This costs endorsement followed a plaintiff's motion to amend her Statement of Claim at the outset of trial, which resulted in an adjournment.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for costs thrown away and for the motion to amend.

The court considered the principles for compensatory cost awards on motions to amend, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments regarding prematurity, unsupported impecuniosity, and alleged inequitable conduct by the defendants.

While finding no substantive grounds to deny costs, the court adjusted the defendants' requested amounts due to identified duplication of effort and time not truly "thrown away," ultimately awarding the defendants $22,500.00 on a substantial indemnity basis for costs thrown away and $1,500.00 on a partial indemnity basis for the motion to amend.

The accused brought a Mills application seeking production of third-party records held by medical providers, telecommunications companies, police services, and probation officers.

The application involved a sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm charge arising from an intimate relationship that had ended.

The court conducted a two-stage analysis under sections 278.3 to 278.9 of the Criminal Code, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests.

The court granted production of certain hospital records, telephone records, police records relating to prior investigations, and police occurrence reports involving dishonesty allegations, while denying production of the complainant's telephone records, family physician records, and probation records.