Kerry Fox

The applicant sought a declaration that he is the beneficial owner of two properties and all common shares of a corporation, claiming he was in a 31-year common-law relationship with the respondent during which he provided funds for purchases registered in her name.

The respondent moved for summary judgment, asserting they were never in a common-law relationship.

The court declined summary judgment on that ground but found the applicant lacked standing to pursue the application due to two prior bankruptcies.

The applicant had made false statements in his bankruptcy filings, declaring no assets while allegedly holding beneficial interests in the properties.

The court found the transfers were made with intent to defeat creditors and that allowing the claim to proceed would condone fraudulent conduct in bankruptcy.

The respondent mother sought an interim restraining order under the Family Law Act and Children’s Law Reform Act to prevent the applicant father from contacting her and their three children.

The court found no evidentiary basis for such an order, noting that the father’s conduct—attending the children’s activities and attempting contact—did not amount to harassment or endangerment.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents’ involvement in the children’s lives and encouraged communication and counseling, ultimately dismissing the motion for a restraining order.

The parties sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following a motion regarding the choice of school for their children.

The respondent had succeeded in having the children attend private school and obtained her alternative relief that she alone be responsible for the fees.

The applicant claimed divided success because the respondent did not obtain an order for proportionate sharing of the fees.

The court rejected the applicant's argument, finding the respondent was the successful party on both issues.

The court awarded the respondent her claimed costs of $3,407.49.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking an order or declaration that $24,000 paid to the applicant in the first six months of 2019 constituted spousal support, primarily to secure tax relief for his 2019 tax return.

The court found insufficient evidence to infer the payments were spousal support, noting the lack of agreement, incomplete financial disclosure, and the interim nature of subsequent support orders.

The cross-motion was dismissed without prejudice to the respondent raising the issue at trial.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for an interim 50/50 parenting schedule and to compel the applicant mother to return with the child to Ottawa.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion to adjourn the parenting issue pending a family counsellor's recommendations, to remain in Burnstown, and for child support.

The court adjourned the parenting schedule issue to obtain the counsellor's views but ordered interim videoconference access for the respondent.

The court permitted the applicant to remain in Burnstown due to her high-risk pregnancy and the respondent's prior consent, ordered the child to attend school virtually, and ordered the respondent to pay child support and disclose employment and mental health records.

The court determined costs following a motion and cross-motion in a family law proceeding where both parties achieved divided success.

The applicant sought an order that no costs be awarded, while the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $9,631.37.

The court found that both parties had problematic settlement offers and engaged in some unreasonable conduct, including the respondent's unilateral withdrawal of funds from a joint line of credit and the applicant's pursuit of final relief on a temporary motion.

Consequently, the court ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting, child support, spousal support, and property issues following their separation.

The court ordered a Voice of the Child report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer to ascertain the children's views on residential schedules.

The court declined to impute income to the mother, finding her career path as a writer reasonable and not constituting intentional underemployment.

The mother was awarded interim spousal support and alternate weekend overnight access, but was ordered to repay $120,000 she had unilaterally withdrawn from a joint line of credit.