Kenneth William James Rhodes

The applicant, Sandra Van Ruymbeke, executor of Mary Powers' estate, sought orders compelling two respondents (siblings Connie Van Ruymbeke and Susan Salenbien) to pass accounts related to a continuing power of attorney for property, and an order to transfer farm properties from Mary's estate to Mark Van Ruymbeke's estate (represented by Connie as Estate Trustee During Litigation).

The court granted the order for Susan Salenbien to pass accounts, as her role as attorney for property was undisputed.

However, a fundamental dispute arose regarding whether Mark Van Ruymbeke was ever granted or acted under a power of attorney for property, which impacts the court's jurisdiction and potential limitation period defenses.

The court found the power of attorney document ambiguous and ordered a trial of an issue to determine Mark's status and conduct, adjourning the request for Connie to pass Mark's accounts until after this determination.

The transfer of farm properties was also addressed with specific conditions.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to establish parenting arrangements for the parties' youngest child, Stewart, during the COVID-19 pandemic, after the applicant father unilaterally withheld access.

The court reaffirmed the presumption that existing parenting arrangements should continue, subject to public health directives, and found no valid reason for the father to deny access.

A temporary order was issued codifying the agreed-upon alternate weekend and mid-week access schedule for the mother, with make-up access to be resolved by counsel.

The order also included non-disparagement clauses and clarified transportation responsibilities.

Other claims, including interim custody, child support arrears, and costs, were deemed non-urgent.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to establish parenting arrangements for a child, S.J.M.B., after the applicant father unilaterally withheld access due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, found the matter urgent under the "Notice to the Profession" guidelines, as it involved the alleged wrongful retention of a child and a unilateral alteration of the status quo.

The court set a schedule for the parties to deliver materials for the motion, reserving the right to reconsider urgency once all materials are filed.

Following separation of a second marriage with no children, the court determined outstanding family law issues including valuation of farm equipment, equalization of net family property, and continuation of spousal support.

The applicant alleged that partial minutes of settlement resolving certain property issues had been signed under a forged signature, but the court rejected the allegation on a balance of probabilities and upheld the validity of the settlement.

Conflicting appraisal evidence regarding farm equipment values was presented, and the court preferred the respondent’s expert evidence due to its credibility and methodological reliability.

The court calculated equalization payable to the applicant based largely on the respondent’s valuations and ordered payment within 30 days.

Due to the applicant’s litigation conduct and unsupported allegations of fraud, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent and deducted those costs from the equalization payment.