Pam Hundal

In a family law matter involving a 42-year marriage, the applicant husband brought a motion for partition and sale of two jointly owned matrimonial properties in Toronto.

The respondent wife opposed the motion, arguing that granting it would prejudice her family law rights, particularly her claim for exclusive possession, and that the husband's incomplete financial disclosure regarding alleged foreign assets in India warranted delaying the sale.

The wife also raised concerns about her vulnerability as a senior citizen with health challenges and limited income.

The court granted the husband's motion for partition and sale, finding that the wife failed to meet her onus of establishing sufficient reason to refuse the sale.

The court also dismissed the wife's separate motion for financial disclosure without prejudice, finding it was improperly brought on the same motion day as the partition motion.

Following a scheduled review of custody and access arrangements in a high‑conflict family law matter, the court considered updated evidence including affidavits, a clinical investigator’s report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and counselling records.

The court addressed preliminary issues including whether unpaid costs should bar a party from further participation and whether privileged interview notes obtained inadvertently should be returned and destroyed.

Assessing the best interests of the children, the court found significant evidence of parental alienation by the respondent affecting the youngest child’s perceptions of the applicant.

The court determined that maintaining the existing shared arrangement risked further damage to the child’s relationship with the applicant.

Custody was therefore confirmed with the applicant, with the youngest child ordered to primarily reside with the applicant and the respondent receiving alternate‑weekend access.