M. Milczarczyk

The father brought a motion to change seeking sole or joint decision-making responsibility and maximum unsupervised parenting time, alleging the children were at risk of physical and sexual abuse in the mother's care.

The mother brought a cross-motion to terminate the father's parenting time entirely and to remove requirements for his consent for travel and passports.

The court found no material change in circumstances to alter decision-making, as the father's abuse allegations were unsubstantiated.

The court declined to terminate the father's parenting time, instead ordering a graduated schedule starting with supervised visits.

The court granted the mother's request to dispense with the father's consent for passports and travel.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order for the partition and sale of a property under the Partition Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by ordering the sale despite a triable issue regarding a trust claim and by failing to find the respondent's conduct was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent's desire to untangle financial affairs was reasonable and the appellant failed to establish prejudice arising from the sale.

Following a successful trial judgment awarding damages for unpaid loans, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs to the date of a settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, relying on Rule 57.01 and the fact that the trial result exceeded the offer.

The court reduced certain trial preparation hours but otherwise found the rates and time spent reasonable.

A co-defendant who had not opposed the claim but had defended against cross-liability from the other defendant was also awarded costs.

Costs payable by the remaining defendant were fixed notwithstanding a consumer proposal filed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act after trial but before the costs determination.

The plaintiff father brought an action against his son and former daughter-in-law to recover over $98,000 in financial advances made during their marriage.

The son admitted the advances were loans and claimed joint liability, while the former daughter-in-law argued they were gifts.

The court found the advances were loans, noting the presumption of advancement does not apply to adult children and the daughter-in-law failed to prove an intention to gift.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff against both defendants jointly and severally.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

Both parties operated cash-based businesses and failed to declare significant income to the CRA.

The court imputed incomes to both parties for the purpose of calculating child and spousal support, rejecting the husband's expert report due to his failure to disclose the cash business.

The court also determined the value of various contested assets and date of marriage deductions for the equalization of net family property, finding the husband's uncorroborated evidence unreliable.