M. Peter Sammon

The applicant brought an unopposed motion to be declared a Special Party under the Family Law Rules and to have his sister appointed as his Legal Representative.

The applicant, who resides in a retirement home, was diagnosed with dementia and assessed as having a major neurocognitive disorder.

The court reviewed the medical evidence and the legal test for incapacity, concluding that the applicant was mentally incapable of dealing with the complex family law issues in the proceeding.

The motion was granted, and the applicant's sister was appointed as his Legal Representative.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a 2019 order regarding the respondent's contributions to their son's university expenses.

The parties presented conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the actual costs, payments made, and the level of disclosure provided.

The court found that credibility findings could not be made on the untested affidavit evidence and that primary source documentation was lacking.

The court directed a focused hearing to determine the appropriate allocation of the university expenses.

The respondent mother, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, brought a motion for a temporary order permitting her to relocate the parties' two children from Chalk River to Kingston due to a military posting.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking an order that the children remain in Chalk River and that the existing shared parenting arrangement continue.

Applying the Plumley principles for interim relocation, the court found a genuine issue for trial and no compelling circumstances to justify an interim move that would disrupt the children's stable environment and close contact with the father.

The mother's motion was dismissed, and the father's cross-motion was granted in part, maintaining the status quo pending trial.

Following a 29-year marriage, the parties sought a determination on equalization, section 7 expenses for their adult daughter's post-secondary education, and spousal support.

The court determined the equalization payment, finding that certain joint bank accounts containing the respondent's inheritances were excluded property due to a resulting trust.

The court ordered both parties to equally share the daughter's outstanding OSAP loan.

The respondent's claim for retroactive spousal support was dismissed, but ongoing spousal support of $600 per month was awarded based on both compensatory and needs-based grounds.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with his two children and to have it unsupervised.

The respondent mother opposed, citing the father's recent criminal charges, substance abuse issues, and mental health concerns, and requested sole decision-making authority and child support.

The court found that while the father has a loving relationship with the children, the mother raised reasonable concerns necessitating temporary supervised parenting time until further evidence regarding his alcohol issues and criminal charges could be assessed.

The court ordered expanded supervised parenting time by an agreed-upon third party and ordered the father to pay $1,000 per month in child support.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order to increase his parenting time with three of his children.

He alleged that the applicant mother was alienating the children from him and that increased time would provide greater predictability.

The applicant opposed the motion, citing differing parenting styles, safety concerns regarding COVID-19, and the children's expressed preferences.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer submitted that the current arrangement was consistent with the children's views.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling reasons or demonstrated change in circumstances to justify altering the interim parenting schedule, noting that the children's comfort with the status quo was not persuasively linked to alienation.

The plaintiffs successfully moved to strike the defendant's statement of defence for failure to deliver a proper affidavit of documents, answer undertakings, and pay an unpaid costs order.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $16,770.71 on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the costs claim improperly included steps taken prior to previous costs orders.

The court limited the costs entitlement to the period subsequent to the last costs order and awarded the plaintiffs $1,550 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant sought continued child support for the parties' 18-year-old child who was completing high school and planning to attend university.

The respondent argued the child was no longer a child of the marriage due to her unilateral estrangement from him.

The court held that the child remained a child of the marriage, noting that situational conflict does not disentitle a child to support.

The court ordered child support to continue until the end of August and directed the parties to discuss a financial plan for the child's post-secondary education.

The applicant brought a motion for child support and disclosure, while the respondent sought a shared parenting arrangement for their two youngest children.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on the respondent's current income but declined to order retroactive support on a temporary basis due to conflicting evidence.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for a week-about parenting schedule, finding it was not in the children's best interests, and maintained the status quo of alternating weekends with a mid-week visit.

The applicant moved for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the sale, seeking exclusive possession to assess the home's value and potentially purchase the applicant's interest.

The court granted the motion for partition and sale, finding no malicious or oppressive conduct by the applicant and noting the respondent failed to establish a realistic claim for exclusive possession under section 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court ordered the property to be listed for sale and directed the parties to exchange updated financial statements to account for personal property sold post-separation.

The respondent brought a motion for the sale of the jointly-owned family home and equal division of proceeds, challenging a prior vesting order in favour of the applicant.

The parties were unmarried but had children together.

The respondent's pleadings had previously been struck for failure to disclose.

The court corrected a calculation error from a previous endorsement regarding the home's equity and post-separation expenses, resulting in a small deficit which the court treated as a wash.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to contest the vesting order, finding it inappropriate given his failure to pay outstanding costs orders, child support arrears, and consistent disregard for court orders.

The applicant challenged the validity of his late father's will, arguing that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when he executed a 'deathbed will' in the hospital following a severe stroke.

The court applied the relaxed test for capacity from Parker v. Felgate, finding that the deceased had full capacity when he gave instructions and reviewed the draft will prior to his stroke.

The court held that the propounders of the will met their burden of proving capacity and that the applicant failed to establish suspicious circumstances or incapacitating delusions.

The will was ordered to be probated.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order requiring the defendants to provide copies of the documents listed in Schedule A of their Affidavit of Documents.

The court noted that the moving party's counsel had prematurely demanded the documents immediately upon receiving the Affidavit of Documents, contrary to good practice.

The court dismissed the motion, observing that it appeared to be a tactic to gain more time to deliver a further affidavit, and extended the timeline for the delivery of that affidavit.

Following reasons for judgment in a family law application determining the valuation date for equalization and dismissing a spousal support claim, the successful party sought full indemnity costs.

The court applied the presumption under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules that the successful party is entitled to costs but considered the relevant factors under Rule 24(11).

Although counsel argued that full indemnity costs were appropriate due to discounted legal rates, the court relied on appellate authority cautioning against awarding full indemnity where the result would effectively replicate actual costs.

The court concluded that partial indemnity costs were appropriate and reduced the claimed amount by 30 percent.

Costs were awarded in the amount of $17,305 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought an uncontested divorce and asserted that the parties separated in 1999, arguing that the respondent’s claims for equalization and spousal support were statute‑barred.

The respondent contended the parties only legally separated in 2014 and sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support, equalization of net family property, and confirmation that funds she withdrew using a power of attorney were a gift.

The court applied the indicia of separation and found that the spouses had lived separate and apart since November 1999 despite maintaining friendly contact and ongoing voluntary financial assistance.

Any equalization claim was therefore statute‑barred, and the voluntary support provided over many years exceeded what would have been payable under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also found that the withdrawal of $22,000 using the power of attorney was not a gift.

The applicant sought to terminate a testamentary trust created by his grandfather, remove his uncle as estate trustee, compel a passing of accounts, and obtain a declaration of his right to use the estate's farm property.

The court found that the applicant held only a contingent interest in the trust fund and a vested future interest in the farm property, which did not grant him a present right to possession or use.

The court dismissed the requests to terminate the trust, remove the trustee, and compel a formal passing of accounts, but ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with copies of the existing accounting records.

Following the discontinuance of a civil action shortly before trial, the defendants sought directions regarding the management and trial of their remaining counterclaims.

The court noted that trial preparation had been substantially completed when the plaintiff discontinued the action.

In the interests of justice and efficiency, the court established a timetable for the amendment of pleadings, completion of documentary discovery and examinations for discovery, a pre-trial conference, and a scheduled trial date.

The court also adjusted the timelines under the Rules of Civil Procedure to accommodate the ordered schedule.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a contempt order against the respondent for failing to comply with a prior court endorsement requiring transfer of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought an adjournment and argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a draft order approval under the Family Law Rules, and indicated that some tax arrears and child support payments had been partially addressed.

The court found ongoing concerns regarding preservation of the matrimonial home, including lapsed home insurance and incomplete compliance with previous orders.

The court directed the Registrar to transfer the property into the applicant’s name in trust pending final resolution of the case and authorized the applicant to encumber the property to secure insurance and address child support arrears.

The applicant was also ordered to attend questioning pursuant to earlier court orders.