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 moving party husband brought a motion for temporary spousal support ten years after the parties separated from a 30-year marriage.

The husband had been intentionally underemployed for the past decade, earning a modest income from a bicycle repair business, while the responding party wife earned approximately $100,000 annually and had assumed the family debt.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding entitlement but ordered temporary spousal support of $1,000 per month.

This amount was set below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range to reflect the husband's failure to make reasonable efforts toward self-sufficiency.

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.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent husband brought a motion to remove the applicant wife's solicitor of record, alleging the solicitor knowingly commissioned a false affidavit and backdated correspondence.

Following cross-examination of the solicitor and his assistant, the court found that the assistant had backdated the letter and lied in her affidavit without the solicitor's knowledge.

The motion to remove the solicitor was dismissed.

The court awarded $5,000 in costs to the applicant, noting the respondent's bad faith in seeking a Law Society investigation and barring the solicitor from future cases.

Following a prior decision in the underlying proceeding, the court addressed costs.

The court accepted the written submissions of the applicant and one respondent regarding the appropriate allocation of costs.

Applying the criteria under the Rules governing costs assessments and considering the procedural history and outcome of the litigation, the court ordered that costs be payable by the other respondent.

Costs were awarded to both the applicant and the co-respondent.

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.