Kevin Kavanagh

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, sole parenting time, a no-contact order against the respondent father, and permission to obtain a passport and travel internationally with their child without the father's consent.

The father did not respond to the claims and did not participate in the uncontested trial.

The court found that the father had a history of criminal behaviour, physical violence, and verbal abuse, and had been largely absent from the child's life.

The court granted the mother's requests, including a no-contact order, finding it in the child's best interests.

Following a Reference regarding the partition and sale of a jointly owned property, the court determined the costs payable by the parties.

The respondent Banifatemi, who was completely successful on the Reference, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,238.40 payable by the applicant.

The applicant and the respondent Abdollahpour had divided success; the court ordered the respondent Abdollahpour to pay the applicant reduced costs of $2,000.00.

The applicant paternal grandmother sought contact with her grandson.

The respondent mother agreed to a gradual resumption of contact, while the respondent father supported the application but did not otherwise participate.

The father had previously commenced a divorce proceeding in Perth, which automatically stayed the grandmother's application under s. 27 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court lifted the stay, finding no bad faith, prejudice to the mother if the stay remained, and a waste of court resources if the matters were not dealt with together.

A consent order for grandparent contact was issued, and the mother's claims against the father were directed to an uncontested trial.

Following a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home and a cross-motion for spousal support, the applicant sought costs of $5,337.99.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the primary issue of the home's sale.

The court determined that the respondent acted unreasonably by changing her position on the sale and serving materials late, which unnecessarily increased the applicant's legal fees.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs fixed at $4,200, payable from her share of the net sale proceeds.

The applicant previously brought a motion regarding arrears of child support and section 7 expenses.

The court issued an endorsement but left 2015 arrears undetermined pending income information.

The parties subsequently agreed on the respondent's 2015 income and arrears.

The court issued this addendum to update the previous endorsement with the agreed-upon figures for child support and post-secondary education expenses.

The parties, who are family members, disputed which real estate agent should list the matrimonial home for sale.

The respondents were successful on the motion and sought costs.

The applicant argued costs should be postponed until ancillary issues were resolved by a Master.

The court declined to postpone costs and awarded partial indemnity costs to one respondent and substantial indemnity costs to the other respondent from the date of her Rule 49 offer to settle.

The parties, who are family members, were in an acrimonious dispute regarding the sale of a mutually-owned home and could not agree on a real estate agent.

The applicant opposed severing the lot, while the property had significant potential for severance to maximize value.

The court reviewed valuation reports from two proposed agents and an appraiser.

The court selected the agent who recognized the property's potential for severance, finding this approach would best achieve the highest fair market value.

The court ordered the property to be listed with that agent and referred remaining issues to the Master.

The respondent wife brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicants' claims for the return of a 50% interest in a property, wedding expenses, and wedding gifts following the parties' separation after a short marriage.

The applicants alleged the property transfer was conditional, fraudulently induced, and signed under duress.

The court applied the expanded fact-finding powers for summary judgment and found that a valid, unconditional gift of the property had been made, with no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding fraud, duress, or oral conditions.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the applicants' claims were dismissed.