L.M. Walters

The parties separated after an 11-year cohabitation and marriage during which they operated a joint property maintenance business.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The court preferred the applicant's evidence due to the respondent's failure to provide accurate financial disclosure and valuations.

The court determined the value of disputed assets, including a partially built home and business equipment, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $161,727.28 (as corrected in the addendum).

The court also found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, imputing an income of $80,000 to the respondent and ordering him to pay $800 per month for five years.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior custody and access order, seeking sole custody of the child, reduced access for the respondent, changes to transportation arrangements, and contribution to extraordinary expenses.

The respondent opposed the motion, sought custody himself, and brought a contempt motion alleging the applicant breached the earlier order by restricting access.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant remaining in St. Catharines after completing her education, contrary to the expectations underlying the original order.

Applying the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court maintained joint custody but modified the respondent’s parenting time to every third weekend with expanded summer access.

The request for s. 7 contributions and the respondent’s contempt motion were both dismissed.

Following a second trial in a family law matter, the court determined the costs for both the first and second trials.

The first trial had been overturned on appeal due to inadequate reasons by the trial judge.

The court declined to award costs for the first trial, finding neither party at fault for its failure.

For the second trial, the applicant was substantially more successful and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

However, the court noted that both parties had unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $150,000 for the second trial.

The plaintiffs and defendants, who are family members, entered into a business venture to purchase and manage an apartment building through a corporation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant managing the building breached his fiduciary duties by misappropriating corporate funds for personal use and to purchase other properties.

After a 40-day trial involving extensive forensic accounting evidence, the court found the defendant's evidence lacked credibility and determined he had misappropriated $592,671.43.

The court imposed a constructive trust on the properties purchased with the misappropriated funds and ordered the defendant removed as an officer, director, and shareholder of the corporation.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought full recovery of trial costs, while the respondent requested that each party bear their own costs.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant was significantly more successful overall, particularly on the key issue of equalization of net family property.

The court also found that the respondent’s conduct, including providing incomplete and misleading information regarding the valuation of a business interest, unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $35,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a divorce trial, the court addressed retroactive child support, a restraining order request, and equalization of net family property.

Retroactive child support was denied because the adult child was not shown to be a dependent within the meaning of the Divorce Act or Family Law Act after age 18.

The court also terminated an existing restraining order, finding insufficient evidence of reasonable fear for personal safety.

In determining equalization, the court rejected parts of the respondent’s financial evidence due to credibility concerns and incomplete disclosure, particularly regarding a family aviation business.

Relying on evidence of a near‑contemporaneous offer to purchase corporate assets, the court valued the respondent’s business interest and ordered an equalization payment to the applicant.

The applicant father and respondent mother both sought sole custody of their two-year-old son.

The mother also sought permission to relocate with the child from St. Catharines to Kingston to live with her new husband.

The court found that the child had thrived under a shared parenting arrangement in St. Catharines, where he had extensive extended family support.

Applying the principles from Gordon v. Goertz and Berry v. Berry, the court determined that relocating to Kingston would significantly disrupt the child's relationship with his father and extended family, and was not in his best interests.

The court ordered joint custody and a shared parenting schedule, and prohibited the relocation.