Matthew T. Kelly

The Respondent (mother) brought a motion seeking partition and sale of a jointly owned property, with proceeds to pay off a mortgage on another property solely owned by her, which the Applicant (father) had guaranteed.

The father opposed the sale and the use of proceeds to pay the mortgage.

The court granted the partition and sale of the jointly owned property, finding the mother had a prima facie right and the father failed to show sufficient reason to refuse the sale.

The court ordered the proceeds to first pay off the collateral mortgage on the mother's property, and then the remaining funds to be disbursed equally between the parties.

The mother's requests for sole carriage, dispensing with the father's consent, and exclusive possession were denied as premature or unsupported by evidence.

Child support was resolved by consent.

This trial addressed financial issues between unmarried parents, specifically child support and retroactive child support, after parenting issues were resolved by consent.

The Applicant sought retroactive child support from 2018 and ongoing support.

The Respondent, who was self-represented, claimed undue hardship and had ceased all child support payments since June 2020.

The court dismissed the undue hardship claim, finding the Respondent's conduct blameworthy due to his failure to provide income disclosure and cessation of payments.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay significant retroactive child support arrears and ongoing child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines, emphasizing that child support is a child's right and not a negotiable debt.

The appellant, Belmar Roofing Inc., appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for breach of contract and negligence for a defective roof installation.

The appeal primarily challenged the trial judge's reliance on the respondent's engineer's expert evidence, which the appellant argued was contradicted by a draft report and exaggerated the roof's danger.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's acceptance of the engineer's testimony, as the engineer adequately explained the omission in the final report and maintained his opinion on the roof's hazards.

The court found ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and no basis to interfere with the damages assessment.

This trial addressed complex family law issues between separated parents, including decision-making authority, parenting schedule, child support, equalization of family property, and a restraining order.

The court ordered shared decision-making and equal parenting time for all three children, emphasizing the importance of both parents' involvement despite one child's resistance.

It dismissed the applicant's request for a restraining order, finding the respondent's problematic communications were reactive rather than coercive.

On financial matters, the court deemed the parents' incomes equal for 2023, resulting in no child support payable for that year, and ordered an equalization payment from the respondent to the applicant, dismissing the respondent's claim for an unequal division of property.

The applicant, sole beneficiary of her late father's estate, brought an application against her aunt (the respondent) and the estate of her late grandmother for misappropriated estate funds.

After the father's death, the grandmother, who was the named estate trustee, used the deceased's debit card to make unauthorized cash withdrawals and retail purchases.

The court found that while the respondent was not a trustee de son tort, she was liable for knowing assistance in the grandmother's breach of trust, as she drove the grandmother to the bank and stores, knew the debit card belonged to the deceased, and assisted in the transactions.

The respondent and the grandmother's estate were held jointly and severally liable for $12,481.42, with the estate liable for an additional amount.

The plaintiff property owner contracted the defendant roofing company to install a new roof on an apartment building.

Following the installation, the roof experienced significant leaking and drainage issues.

The plaintiff's expert engineer concluded the roof was poorly installed, not properly secured, and posed a public safety hazard.

The plaintiff subsequently sold the building, agreeing to a $200,000 reduction in the purchase price due to the defective roof.

The court found the defendant breached the contract and was negligent in its installation, awarding the plaintiff $203,329.98 in damages for the price reduction and interim repair costs.

The appellants appealed from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Justice granting the respondent's motion to amend her statement of claim in a Simplified Rules action.

The Court of Appeal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as interlocutory orders fall within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court with leave.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The husband brought a motion to change a 2008 final order, seeking termination of his spousal support obligation due to his impending full retirement at age 65.

The court found that retirement at age 65 constituted a material change in circumstances.

Despite the general rule against "double-dipping," the court applied the hardship/need exception from *Boston v. Boston*, allowing the husband's full retirement income to be considered for support calculations given the wife's significant need and unemployability.

The court reduced spousal support from $2,700 monthly to $1,200 monthly, aiming to maintain the original order's goal of equalizing net disposable incomes, consistent with the principles of variation orders outlined in *L.M.P. v. L.S.*

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants argued they should receive costs based on an offer to settle or the principle that a party seeking to amend should pay the responding party's costs.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, noting the plaintiff beat the offer to settle and the amendment was sought well in advance of trial, unlike the precedent cited by the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the successful plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff sought to amend her statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action to include allegations under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act, and to assert the corporate defendant's insolvency.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments were statute-barred.

The court allowed the amendments, finding they did not introduce new causes of action but rather alternative claims for relief based on the existing factual matrix, thus not subject to a limitation period.

The Applicant sought costs following a partially successful motion for disclosure from a non-party, Blue Water Metals.

The court found the Applicant more successful than Blue Water Metals, which had unreasonably resisted disclosure.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance of the issues, the parties' conduct, and counsel's rates, the court awarded the Applicant $7,000 in costs against Blue Water Metals.

No costs were ordered against the Respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for specified financial disclosure from a company owned by the respondent's parents, where the respondent was currently employed, and for the respondent's father to attend for questioning.

The applicant alleged the respondent was shielding income to reduce his child and spousal support obligations.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the non-party company to produce client lists and financial statements, and ordering the respondent's father to attend for questioning, finding it would be unfair for the applicant to proceed to the motion to change without this information.

The court determined costs following a motion where the respondent was substantially more successful than the applicant.

The applicant's monetary claims and request for the respondent to pass accounts were dismissed, as the applicant had no interest in the estate.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the applicant to the respondent.