Mark Coulston

The applicant was successful on a motion to sell the matrimonial home and sought costs of $14,976.46.

The respondent opposed the motion and argued each party should bear their own costs, relying on an offer she made.

The court found the respondent's offer did not beat the order as it included a right of first refusal condition.

However, the court reduced the applicant's costs because he failed to make any offer to settle, which was deemed unreasonable behaviour under the Family Law Rules.

Costs were fixed at $7,000 payable by the respondent, to be set off against any equalization payment.

The applicant sought summary judgment for the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed, seeking interim exclusive possession and raising issues regarding her alleged Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), the applicant's alleged cognitive decline affecting finances, and undisclosed assets.

The court granted the applicant's motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The respondent's claims regarding MCS lacked medical corroboration, and her financial allegations against the applicant were unsubstantiated.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for interim exclusive possession and the applicant's request for possession of household contents, ordering that $60,000 from each party's share of the sale proceeds be held in trust pending further order.

Birani Homes Ltd. appealed an order from the Chief Building Official of the City of London compelling it and the homeowners to submit an engineering report and remediate an unsafe foundation.

Birani argued the City lacked jurisdiction and the order was unreasonable because Birani had no right of access to the property.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order as it was unreasonable to compel compliance when access was impossible, especially after a prior resolution acknowledged this inability.

The City was prohibited from issuing further orders against Birani requiring access to the property.

The parties brought cross-motions for an interim parenting schedule, and the respondent sought interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for exclusive possession, finding insufficient evidence that it was in the children's best interests to remove the applicant from the home, and ordered the home listed for sale.

On the parenting issues, the court ordered interim interim joint custody with primary residence to the respondent and a generous parenting schedule for the applicant, noting the respondent's historical role as the primary caregiver.