Kateryna Yanovsky

The respondent mother brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant father.

The court denied the motion for security for costs, finding that the mother had not met the onus to demonstrate that the father's claims were a waste of time or a nuisance, and that such orders are a blunt instrument to be used sparingly.

However, the court, troubled by the father's admitted non-compliance with previous temporary child support and costs orders, conditionally struck the father's child support claims pursuant to Family Law Rule 1(8).

The striking order would be stayed if the father brought himself into full compliance with all outstanding financial obligations by the next court date.

The parties separated after a long relationship.

The main issues involved the ownership and equalization of a property at 335 Penn Avenue, which the respondent purchased with inherited funds but later transferred into joint tenancy.

The court found that the respondent rebutted the presumption of joint ownership and held the property by way of a resulting trust.

However, because the property was a matrimonial home on the date of separation, its value was included in the equalization calculation.

The court ordered the applicant to pay occupation rent for his post-separation use of the home and to contribute to their child's post-secondary education expenses.

After setting off these amounts against the equalization payment, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $63,696.

The father brought a motion seeking primary care of the parties’ child after the child had temporarily resided with him during the mother’s attempt to relocate for employment.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking the child’s return to her care pending determination of the father’s motion to change an earlier custody order.

The court found that the prior final order granting the mother sole custody represented the legal status quo and that the temporary residence arrangement with the father was intended to be temporary under the parties’ agreement.

Applying the best interests of the child under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court concluded the child should return to the mother’s care until the motion to change is determined on the merits.