3 total
The court extended the equalization limitation period and declared a family agreement a sham trust.
This decision addresses the determination of the valuation date for equalization of net family property and the extension of time to bring an equalization claim under the Family Law Act.
The court finds the parties separated on August 3, 2013, and grants the applicant wife an extension of time to bring her claim, rejecting the respondent husband's earlier separation date and arguments of substantial prejudice.
The court also finds that a family "Agreement and Last Will" was a sham trust, intended to shield assets from creditors, and that the evidentiary record is insufficient to determine equalization, requiring a new trial on equalization and support.
The court dismissed the Hague Convention appeal, upholding factual findings of the appellant's acquiescence.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the Children's Law Reform Act seeking a declaration that his daughter was habitually resident in Israel and was wrongfully retained in Canada by the respondent.
The application judge found that the parties had mutually agreed to change their habitual residence from Israel to Ontario while visiting Toronto, and that the appellant had subsequently consented to or acquiesced in Ontario as the daughter's habitual residence.
The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings as factual determinations entitled to considerable deference, finding no palpable and overriding errors.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
The court awarded the respondent $5,000 in partial costs for two wasted case conferences caused by the applicant's failure to produce financial disclosure.
The respondent mother sought $15,000 in costs for five case conferences in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.
The applicant father opposed the costs award, claiming financial hardship after already spending $62,000 in legal fees.
The court found that while the first two case conferences were wasted appearances due to the father's failure to produce ordered financial disclosure, the remaining three conferences involved ongoing custody and access negotiations with no clear winner or loser.
The court awarded partial costs of $5,000 to the mother, payable within 30 days or at $300 per month commencing May 1, 2016, noting the absence of a formal offer to settle and the father's financial constraints.