Alexandre Martel

The court considered whether to bifurcate the issue of the validity of a Cohabitation Agreement from the remaining family law claims following the parties’ separation.

The Applicant sought to have the Agreement declared void and advanced claims for spousal support, equalization, unjust enrichment, and a trust in the matrimonial home.

The Respondent moved to have the validity of the Agreement determined first.

The court reviewed the legal framework for bifurcation, including the relevant rules and case law, and concluded that the validity of the Agreement was a discrete, threshold issue.

The court ordered that the issue of validity be tried first, finding this approach would be just, expeditious, and cost-effective, and would not prejudice either party.

The appellant challenged a family law order requiring him to pay child support and spousal support, alleging unfair trial management, misapprehension of evidence, errors in law regarding support, unjust enrichment, joint family venture, child support, and credibility assessments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for the appellant's arguments, affirming the trial judge's comprehensive reasons, balanced trial management, and well-supported credibility assessments, particularly regarding the appellant's lack of credibility concerning his relationship and finances.

The court also upheld the discretionary lump sum spousal support award.

The applicant mother sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that upheld a trial judge's order making her child a Crown ward with no access for adoption purposes.

The applicant was 11 days late in filing her motion.

She explained the delay was due to attempts to secure financing, finding appeal counsel, and counsel's illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for extension of time, finding no potential merit to the proposed leave to appeal application.

The trial judge and Divisional Court had thoroughly considered all grounds of appeal and found ample evidence supporting Crown wardship as being in the child's best interests.

This is an appeal from a Deputy Judge's decision finding the defendant unjustly enriched.

The plaintiffs had contributed to a bail bond for a relative, which the defendant received reimbursement for but did not repay the plaintiffs.

The appeal addressed whether the Deputy Judge erred in applying the test for unjust enrichment, specifically the absence of juristic reason, and whether there was a palpable and overriding error in the findings of fact.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Deputy Judge's application of the unjust enrichment test and findings of fact.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's property claim, the respondent parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the applicant's conduct unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and complicated a simple contractual dispute.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the settlement offers did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court reduced the requested amounts due to duplication of effort, excessive use of senior counsel, and unreasonable refusal of a settlement offer by one respondent, awarding total costs of $47,500 across the three respondents.

This decision addresses costs in a long-standing family law dispute involving custody, access, and child support.

The respondent's motion to change custody and access was dismissed by consent, and support issues were resolved after the respondent provided complete financial disclosure, which had been significantly delayed.

The applicant was substantially successful on custody and access, and the final agreement largely mirrored the applicant's settlement offers.

The court found the respondent caused delays, particularly in financial disclosure, and awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, including GST/HST and disbursements.

The landlord, White Spruce Apartments, brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by the tenant, Anne Deschenes, against an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The landlord argued that the appeal was clearly without merit and did not raise a question of law.

The tenant's grounds of appeal included procedural fairness issues, erroneous factual findings, and the landlord's failure to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

The court denied the tenant's adjournment request, finding that a responding affidavit was not critically important.

The court ultimately agreed with the landlord, determining that the appeal grounds raised questions of mixed fact and law, not law alone, and were devoid of merit.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The applicant sought a declaration of ownership over a 13-acre parcel of land, relying on concepts of constructive/resulting trust, unjust enrichment, proprietary estoppel, and adverse possession.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish the legal requirements for these remedies and was barred by the doctrine of laches due to significant delay in asserting his claim after multiple property transfers.

In this child protection matter involving a newborn, the Society sought temporary care while pursuing Crown wardship for adoption.

The mother opposed and moved for temporary placement with a maternal aunt, with the father consenting to that proposal.

The court declined to change the child’s existing temporary placement before the kinship assessment of the aunt was completed, citing unresolved questions about the proposed plan and the risk of multiple placement changes.

Temporary care was therefore ordered to remain with the Society, without prejudice, with parental access at the Society’s discretion subject to existing visit terms.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for removing the parties’ child to Australia and remaining there for an extended period contrary to the spirit and effect of a prior custody order.

Although the original judgment permitted occasional extended trips to Australia, the court found that the respondent’s prolonged stay and failure to provide return information constituted deliberate and wilful disobedience.

The court concluded that the elements of contempt were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a remedial measure, the court granted the applicant compensatory access time and addressed travel concerns, while emphasizing that family law contempt remedies should focus on promoting compliance rather than punishment.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the applicant, recoverable as a credit against child support through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, occupation rent for the matrimonial home, and an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to grant interim relief, noting the matter was already scheduled for trial within two months and that the requested orders would require credibility findings and fuller financial disclosure.

The court held that issues relating to occupation rent, ownership interests, equalization, and entitlement to spousal support should be determined by the trial judge after a full evidentiary hearing.

Concerns also existed regarding incomplete financial disclosure and the respondent’s ongoing payment of household and child-related expenses.

The motion was dismissed with costs reserved to the trial judge.