Kristen Woods

The applicant brought a motion for vacant possession and sole carriage of the sale of a property she solely owned, where the respondent had been residing since their separation.

The respondent opposed the motion, asserting constructive trust and joint family venture claims.

The court granted the motion, finding that the respondent's equitable claims did not prevent the sale, as his interests could be protected by holding the net proceeds in trust.

The respondent was ordered to vacate the property within 45 days, and the applicant was granted sole carriage of the sale due to the respondent's uncooperative conduct.

The court determined costs arising from four prior family law motions relating to partial distribution of matrimonial home sale proceeds and disclosure obligations following the death of a spouse.

Although success on the motions was divided, the estate trustee was more successful on the principal issue concerning the release of sale proceeds.

The court considered Family Law Rules 24 and 18 governing costs and offers to settle, as well as the parties’ conduct regarding disclosure and litigation behaviour.

The estate sought full indemnity costs exceeding $45,000, while the respondent sought approximately $7,996.

The court awarded the estate $17,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, structured with partial immediate payment and the balance deferred pending final resolution of the proceedings.

The respondent brought a motion regarding jurisdiction in a child support proceeding.

The applicant sought to vary a foreign child support order made in Maryland through either a Motion to Change or an Application under the Family Law Act.

The respondent argued the applicant must proceed under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA).

The court held that jurisdiction to vary a foreign support order made corollary to a foreign divorce can only be derived from provincial legislation respecting enforcement of support orders, namely the ISOA.

The court stayed the Motion to Change and Application insofar as they related to support and ordered the applicant to proceed under the ISOA.

Competing family law motions arose after the death of a spouse during unresolved divorce proceedings involving a challenged marriage contract, equalization, and support claims.

The estate trustee sought security for costs and disclosure, while the surviving spouse sought preservation of former matrimonial home sale proceeds and orders relating to inventory and valuation of property and business interests.

The court held that security for costs was not justified under Rule 24(13) because there was insufficient evidence that the claims were a waste of time or a nuisance, despite concerns about the spouse’s asset transfers and lack of assets in Ontario.

The court instead made detailed disclosure and case-management directions, ordered a business valuator selection process funded from sale proceeds held in trust, and reserved costs.