Matthew Giesinger

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the respondent's claims for equalization and spousal support following an 18-day marriage.

The respondent alleged the applicant used her credit to purchase a property and lied about his previous marital status.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to provide basic financial disclosure or clearly refute the respondent's allegations, leaving genuine issues for trial.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff transferred $96,000 to the defendant during their brief intimate relationship.

After the relationship ended, the plaintiff sued to recover the funds, claiming they were a loan, while the defendant argued they were a gift.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, placing the onus on the defendant to prove the transfers were gifts.

Finding the defendant's testimony not credible and the text messages equivocal, the court concluded the defendant failed to meet her onus and ordered her to repay the $96,000.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order placing the child in the deemed custody of the respondent father, with parenting time for the respondent mother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care, and objected to the admissibility of unsworn reports from the child's treating psychologist.

The court held that the psychologist was a participant expert whose unsworn reports were admissible on a summary judgment motion.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion, placing the child in the father's custody with decision-making responsibility, and ordered parenting time for the mother.

The applicant sought a declaration that a prior court order, which directed the respondent's share of matrimonial home sale proceeds be held in trust as security for spousal support claims, made her a secured creditor under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondent subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The court held that the prior order was merely a preservation order and did not create a secured creditor interest.

Consequently, the respondent's share of the proceeds vested in the Trustee in Bankruptcy, and a previous costs award paid to the applicant from those proceeds was set aside.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two children to Florida.

The mother had relocated the children to Ontario without the father's consent, breaching their shared parenting agreement.

The mother opposed the return, arguing under Article 13 that returning the children posed a grave risk of harm and that the children objected to returning.

The court found no evidence of grave risk and determined that the children's objections were significantly influenced by the mother and not substantial.

The court ordered the children to be returned to Florida.

The defendants sought costs of two motions on a partial indemnity scale against the plaintiff, and also sought costs personally against the plaintiff's former legal counsel under Rule 57.07(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court awarded costs to the defendants against the plaintiff, finding the amounts claimed reasonable.

However, the court dismissed the claim for costs against the plaintiff's former lawyers, finding their conduct did not meet the high threshold for personal liability.

The defendants were ordered to pay $1,500 in costs to the plaintiff's former lawyers for successfully defending the claim against them.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action against his estranged spouse and her family members, claiming damages for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy relating to the alleged concealment and sale of jointly owned marital assets.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing the claims were disguised attempts to seek an equalization payment and must be brought in Family Court.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to transfer the action to an existing Family Court proceeding.

The court agreed with the defendants, finding that the claims were predicated on an entitlement to an equalization payment under the Family Law Act and constituted an abuse of process in civil court.

The court struck the statement of claim and dismissed the plaintiff's motion to transfer, noting the plaintiff must seek leave to add parties in the Family Court proceeding.