Michael Kevin Housley

The Applicant and Respondent, divorced spouses, disputed their date of separation, ownership of the matrimonial home (1 Glendale Avenue, Brampton), retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the date of separation to be August 1, 1993, based on a separation agreement, tax filings, and evidence of separate lives within the same home.

The Respondent's claim for a resulting trust over the Applicant's 50% registered interest in the Glendale property was granted, as the Applicant made no financial contribution and was only on title for financing purposes, rebutting the presumption of joint ownership.

The Applicant's claim for equalization was dismissed as statute-barred.

The Respondent was awarded $39,821 in retroactive child support, while the claim for retroactive section 7 expenses for orthodontics was dismissed as the parties were found to share the expense 50-50 and the Respondent had already paid his share.

A family law matter concerning custody, access, and child support for a three-year-old child born to unmarried parents.

The father sought joint custody and generous unsupervised access, while the mother sought sole custody with discretionary access to the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, found that access should remain in the mother's discretion, and imputed income to the father for child support purposes based on his incomplete financial disclosure and evasive financial practices.

The appellants, estate trustees, appealed an order interpreting the deceased's will and removing them as trustees.

The application judge found that the primary responsibility of the estate was to maintain the respondent, the deceased's wife, and that she was not required to exhaust her own income before resorting to capital.

The application judge also removed the appellants as trustees for failing to maintain an even hand between the income and capital beneficiaries.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's interpretation of the will and the removal of the trustees, and awarded costs to the respondent.