Judith E. Wilcox

The parties brought a motion for directions to determine whether property excluded under their cohabitation agreement could be traced into other assets and remain excluded from equalization.

The applicant argued that the agreement did not explicitly provide for tracing, while the respondent argued that the creation of a new category of excluded property implicitly included tracing rights.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and examined the factual matrix, concluding that the mutual and objective intention of the parties was to exclude pre-marriage property and any property traced from it.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of affidavits sworn by the respondent's former counsel and a law clerk.

The applicant, acting as litigation guardian for the deceased's two children, brought an application to remove the respondent as the estate trustee.

The respondent, who was the deceased's former common-law partner, had continued to occupy the deceased's home, used estate assets, and improperly claimed pension survivor benefits despite having separated from the deceased prior to her death.

The court found that the totality of the respondent's actions, including his hostility toward the beneficiaries and potential conflicts of interest regarding estate debts, raised real concerns about his ability to carry out his fiduciary duties.

The application was granted, the respondent was removed, and the alternate trustees named in the will were appointed.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a prior order seeking to terminate child support and special expenses for two adult children attending post-secondary education.

The court considered the definition of “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act and the application of sections 3 and 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

Applying the factors from Rosenberg v. Rosenberg and related authorities, the court found both children remained financially dependent while enrolled full-time in post-secondary programs and therefore continued to qualify as children of the marriage.

The court rejected the request to reduce basic child support to zero and held the Guidelines table amount remained appropriate.

The father was also ordered to contribute one-third of the children’s post-secondary education expenses beginning with the 2015–2016 academic year, conditional on proper disclosure of educational details.