Matthew Gianotti

The moving party brought a motion for a stay and for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay and leave to appeal paragraph 3 of the order.

However, the court granted leave to appeal paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding whether the motions judge erred in deciding an evidentiary issue on a final basis.

Costs of $7,200 were awarded to the responding party.

This focused hearing determined the valuation date for the equalization of the parties’ net family property.

The applicant wife sought a valuation date of September 19, 2022, while the respondent husband argued for July 1, 2014, which would have statute-barred the wife's equalization claim.

The court, after a holistic review of the evidence regarding the parties' intentions and conduct, found that neither party intended to end the marital relationship or regarded the marriage as being at an end until September 19, 2022.

Consequently, the court set the valuation date for equalization purposes as September 19, 2022.

The trial addressed Sebastian's request for prospective parenting time with his child, O., following his release from a two-year robbery sentence, and child support issues, including arrears and income imputation while incarcerated.

The court ordered a gradual, supervised parenting time regime for Sebastian, contingent on mental health evaluation, drug testing, and reconciliation counselling, acknowledging both parents' contributions to the estrangement.

It also retroactively adjusted child support, finding Sebastian had overpaid, and imputed a nominal income during incarceration, increasing upon release.

The applicant mother brought a motion to terminate or supervise the respondent father's access to their child following allegations of sexual abuse.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to enforce the existing final order, make-up access, and a finding of contempt against the mother.

The Children's Aid Society investigated and did not verify the allegations.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to make findings of sexual abuse and ordered that the father's unsupervised access continue, including limited overnight access.

The court also appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child and dismissed the balance of both motions.