Lauri-Ann Daitchman

The applicant father brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned rental property.

The respondent mother agreed to the sale but insisted it be sold privately to her mother, without a formal offer or specific price, arguing it would save real estate commission.

The court found no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant in seeking an open market sale.

Conversely, the respondent's demand to sell only to her mother was deemed oppressive.

The court also addressed the respondent's failure to attend the motion, affirming its duty to proceed justly.

The motion was granted, and the court ordered the rental property to be listed for sale on the open market with specific terms for realtor selection and cooperation.

The appellant appealed a Family Court decision resolving numerous issues arising from his separation from the respondent, a common law partner.

The appeal involved three main categories of claims: financial rulings (spousal support, child support, unjust enrichment), property-related claims (the Shirrick property and Magdalan property), and a claim for wrongfully withdrawn funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on all grounds, finding no legal errors or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court confirmed the trial judge's determination that the Shirrick property was jointly owned at separation and that the appellant was not entitled to an increased share based on greater financial contributions.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the Magdalan property claim, finding no causal connection between the respondent's refusal to participate in the purchase and the appellant's losses.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.