Lisa DeLong

The respondent brought three motions, including one for contempt against the applicant for failing to transfer property title as per a prior order.

The other two motions were withdrawn.

The court found the applicant in civil contempt, ruling that the prior order was clear and that the applicant willfully disobeyed it by imposing additional conditions for the transfer not stipulated in the order.

The court ordered the applicant to purge her contempt by signing the transfer documents by a specified date.

Costs were awarded to the respondent for the contempt motion, and costs thrown away were awarded to the applicant for the withdrawn motions, resulting in a net cost award to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim for a constructive trust interest in a home owned by her former common law partner.

The parties cohabited for 15 years.

The appellant claimed she was entitled to half the equity in the home based on her contributions during cohabitation, including payment of half the monthly mortgage costs, utilities, food, and domestic work.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no unjust enrichment and no joint family venture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the trial judge made no error of fact or law.

The appellant was never on title, never financially liable for the mortgage, and did not pay for capital repairs, insurance, or property taxes.

The parties kept their finances separate and did not demonstrate an intention to integrate their financial lives.

The father brought a motion for temporary joint custody and increased access to his two-year-old child pending an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The mother opposed the expanded access, citing concerns about the father's living arrangements, while the father raised concerns about the mother's work schedule and availability.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order but found it in the child's best interests to expand the father's access from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon.

Costs were awarded to the father on a partial indemnity basis.

This trial addressed complex family law issues including custody and access for two children, spousal and child support, and division of property.

The Applicant mother's allegations of spousal and child abuse were largely rejected by the court, which found her claims fabricated and her actions detrimental to the children's relationship with the Respondent father.

The court prioritized the children's best interests, emphasizing the importance of maintaining relationships with both parents and siblings.

Custody of one child was awarded to the father, and a plan for counselling was ordered to re-establish the other child's relationship with the father.

The mother was found to be underemployed, and her income was imputed for child support purposes.

Spousal support was denied due to a lack of financial interweaving and interdependence during the cohabitation.

Property division for the jointly held home was limited to the mother's direct financial contribution.

The applicant sought a constructive trust interest in the respondent's home after a 15-year cohabitation.

The court applied the unjust enrichment framework from Kerr v. Baranow, finding no joint family venture and no tangible benefit conferred by the applicant that unjustly enriched the respondent.

The applicant's claim for a constructive trust was dismissed.

A counterclaim for pet damage by the respondent was also dismissed due to lack of mitigation evidence.

The parties separated in 2012 and sought a determination on custody, access, child support, and equalization.

The father sought joint or sole custody, while the mother sought sole custody.

The court found that the parties had significant conflict and could not communicate effectively, exacerbated by the father's unfounded complaints to the Children's Aid Society.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court awarded sole custody to the mother with generous access to the father.

The court also calculated child support arrears and section 7 expenses, but offset them entirely against the father's post-separation mortgage payments, and ordered an equal division of the matrimonial home proceeds.

Multiple competing family law motions addressed child support, retroactive support, post‑secondary expenses, reinstatement of spousal support, and insurance obligations following a prior separation agreement and a subsequent divorce order.

The court considered the interaction between a 2001 separation agreement and a 2006 divorce order that increased and time‑limited spousal support.

Applying principles from Miglin and related jurisprudence, the court held that spousal support could be reinstated despite the earlier termination because the agreement contemplated material changes once child support ended and the recipient’s economic disadvantage persisted due to caregiving responsibilities.

The court also ordered retroactive guideline child support reflecting the payor’s increased income and continued support for an adult child suffering from major depression who remained dependent.

Other contractual provisions relating to life insurance and benefits were left intact.

Following a nine-day family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award between the parties.

Although both parties had exchanged settlement offers, neither was sufficiently advantageous to trigger substantial indemnity costs under the applicable principles.

The court found that the respondent father was significantly more successful on the primary issues at trial and that the trial was unnecessarily prolonged due to the applicant mother's unwillingness to make reasonable concessions.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the mother to pay the father's costs in the fixed amount of $12,000.

The court directed that the costs be applied to reduce the equalization payment owed by the father rather than to his support obligations in order to avoid negative impacts on the children.

Supplementary reasons were issued to correct and clarify aspects of an earlier family law decision released March 14, 2013.

The court amended two portions of the earlier judgment by correcting a monetary figure and a date referenced in the reasons.

The court also clarified parenting arrangements by ordering that the mother have access to the children of the marriage for a two-week period during summer school vacations.

These supplementary reasons were provided following counsel’s appearance to address the necessary corrections and clarifications.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage with four children.

The mother sought sole custody, limited access for the father, and significant equalization and support payments.

The court ordered joint custody, finding the mother had attempted to minimize the father's relationship with the children.

The court expanded the father's access and imputed an annual income of $40,000 to the mother, a qualified teacher, due to intentional underemployment.

The father was ordered to pay child support, a time-limited spousal support of $250 per month, and an equalization payment of $63,419.27, subject to deductions for credits and prior costs.