Jessica Polis

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to have the respondent father found in contempt of several court orders, including alleged failures to administer medication to their child, transporting the child on an e-bike, producing an accurate income valuation report, and complying with costs orders.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the applicant had not proven the alleged breaches beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the required standard for contempt.

The decision clarified that a failure to comply with a payment order is excluded as a ground for contempt under the Family Law Rules and that the orders regarding medical decision-making and the valuation report were not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to support a contempt finding.

The applicant, having been successful on a motion regarding the children's school enrolment, sought costs on a full indemnity basis of $15,663.04, relying on an offer to settle.

The respondent argued the amount was disproportionate and suggested $910 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the offer to settle did not attract elevated costs as it mirrored the relief sought without compromise.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $6,785.

The parties, who share joint decision-making responsibility, disagreed on where their two children should attend school after the respondent moved to a new municipality.

The applicant brought a motion to have the children enrolled in a school within his catchment area, supported by the recommendation of an Office of the Children's Lawyer clinician.

The court applied the principles for choice of school disputes and found that enrolling the children in the applicant's catchment area was in their best interests, as it would minimize disruption to their existing community supports and better accommodate their special needs.

This is an appeal from an arbitrator's decision concerning a resulting trust in a common-law relationship.

The applicant (original applicant, respondent on appeal) paid the deposit and all expenses for a jointly held home.

The arbitrator found a resulting trust in his favour, ordering the respondent (original respondent, appellant on appeal) to convey her interest.

The Superior Court found the arbitrator made a palpable and overriding error by misapprehending the relevance of the applicant's will at the time of purchase and misinterpreting the legal effect of joint tenancy as an inter vivos gift.

The court concluded that the applicant intended to gift the property to the respondent at the time of purchase, and the subsequent dissolution of their relationship did not negate this.

The court also rejected the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, as a gift provides a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The appeal was allowed, and the parties were ordered to obtain a joint appraisal, with the applicant having the option to buy out the respondent's half interest or the property being sold and proceeds divided.