Obaidul Hoque

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent held her 50% interest in a condominium in trust for him, based on resulting and/or constructive trust principles, and an order vesting 100% beneficial ownership in him.

The respondent filed a counter-application seeking an order for the listing and sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The court found no resulting trust, as the respondent contributed significantly to the property's acquisition cost, negating a gratuitous transfer.

No constructive trust was established, as the applicant's payment of carrying costs was offset by his family's occupation of the property, providing a juristic reason for any enrichment.

The applicant's claims were denied, and the respondent's counter-application for the sale of the property was granted, with net proceeds to be divided equally.

The respondent father sought to set aside a final child support order made in 2013 on the grounds of lack of service and failure to appear, or alternatively, to vary the order retroactively based on a change in circumstances.

The applicant mother opposed both requests.

The court found that the father had adequate notice of the proceedings through service of an amended application and related documents, and that he failed to provide satisfactory reasons for his non-appearance.

The court dismissed the request to set aside the order.

However, the court found that the father's actual income was substantially less than the $150,000 imputed by the original judge, and that there had been a material change in circumstances.

The court varied the order retroactively from January 1, 2014, determining the father's income based on a lifestyle analysis that revealed significant unreported cash income.

The court also accounted for the birth of a second child in 2015 as a change in circumstances.