Michael H. Murray

Following a successful motion by the respondent to enforce a settlement regarding farm properties, the respondent and third party sought their costs.

The applicant argued that success was divided and each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful as he obtained the order enforcing the settlement.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the respondent and $2,500 to the third party.

The Respondent brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a family law matter concerning the division of farm properties and assets.

The Applicant argued that no binding agreement existed due to missing essential terms, or alternatively, that the Respondent failed to carry out the terms.

The court found that a binding settlement had been reached, with the parties being ad idem on all essential terms, and that the Respondent had not failed to complete the transaction.

The Respondent's motion to enforce the settlement was granted, with specific modifications to the draft minutes of settlement regarding interest, property transfer to a third party, and a first charge.

The applicant brought a motion for further disclosure, and the respondent Jamie McDonald brought a motion to suspend or vary a previous order directing the sale of four jointly owned farm properties.

The court granted the disclosure requests, ordering both sides to produce specified financial and operational records, noting that while some information should have been sought during earlier questioning, it was necessary for trial preparation.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to vary the sale order, finding it was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate an issue he had previously elected not to participate in, and that delaying the sale would be unfair to the applicant.

This endorsement from a trial readiness conference outlines the outstanding issues for the second phase of a bifurcated trial.

The court clarified that a previous 2021 valuation of the home farm was for settlement purposes only and would not govern compensation, and confirmed that the order refusing the sale of the home farm was a final order not to be re-litigated.

The endorsement also set deadlines for disclosure and undertakings motions, identified remaining trial issues including valuation of farm equipment, equalization, support claims, and trust claims, and scheduled further conferences and trial dates.

This motion concerned the sale of five jointly owned farm properties following a marital breakdown.

The applicant sought an order for sale, while the respondents argued that section 11 of the Family Law Act prohibited such a sale for an operating farm.

The court determined that section 11 of the Family Law Act applies to jointly owned farms and that the "home farm" was indispensable to the operation and should not be sold.

However, the court found that the other jointly owned properties could be sold without seriously impairing the farm's operation, and that reasonable alternative methods existed to satisfy any equalization award.

This decision details the findings from the first portion of a bifurcated trial in divorce proceedings, primarily addressing the valuation of farm properties and farm equipment.

The court also considered the applicant's motion for partition and sale of jointly owned properties.

The judgment provides detailed analysis of expert appraisal methodologies, including fair market value, depreciation, comparable sales, and the influence of factors like drainage and solar panels on property values.

The court made specific findings on the values of seven farm properties and various pieces of equipment as of the marriage, separation, and trial dates.

The decision on the motion for partition and sale was reserved, pending further submissions from the parties regarding the impact of a recent case.

The appellant sought to vary a trial judge's order regarding the sale of a matrimonial home, specifically challenging the respondent's right to purchase the home after a fair market value assessment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, ruling that a right of first refusal, in the absence of consent, distorts the market and should not have been granted.

The court vacated the impugned section of the order and directed the immediate listing of the matrimonial home for sale.

This endorsement addresses multiple cross-motions following a prior order by Price J. The respondent sought a contempt order against the applicant for failing to sell her interest in the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought a stay of the sale provision, lifting of a stay on equalization payment enforcement, dismissal of the respondent's Small Claims Court action, directions on communication, permission for email service, and a restriction on the respondent initiating further proceedings.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, granted the stay of the sale provision, and granted the communication and email service requests.

It dismissed the request to lift the stay on equalization payment and to dismiss the Small Claims Court action due to lack of jurisdiction.

The request to restrict further proceedings was also dismissed.

The issue of household contents was referred back to Price J.

The applicant, Mr. B., brought a motion for access to his three children, initially seeking equal parenting time and joint custody, but at the motion, pursued only access.

The court reviewed the tumultuous history of the parties' relationship, marked by mutual aggression, domestic violence, and criminal charges against Mr. B. for assault and mischief.

Concerns were raised about the children's exposure to violence and their vulnerable state, including one child undergoing counselling and two subpoenaed to testify in Mr. B.'s upcoming criminal trial.

Despite Mr. B. completing a "Changing Ways" program and having previously arranged supervised access, the court denied his request for unsupervised weekend access, finding it inconsistent with the children's best interests.

A temporary order for supervised access at the Merrymount Children’s Centre was granted, with parties required to complete intake procedures.

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.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a stay of the applicant’s Ontario proceeding and an order requiring the children’s return to Nova Scotia, arguing that the parties and children had relocated there and that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought temporary custody and a declaration that Ontario had jurisdiction.

The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the "ordinary residence" test under the Divorce Act and that the children were not habitually resident in Ontario within the meaning of the Children’s Law Reform Act because the respondent had not consented to their return.

However, jurisdiction was properly exercised under s. 22(1)(b) of the CLRA because the children were physically present in Ontario, substantial evidence regarding their best interests existed there, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The respondent’s motion was dismissed and the applicant was granted temporary custody and primary care of the children.