Paul D. Slan

The parties, parents of a nine-year-old child, engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding parenting and child support.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making and primary residence, alleging the respondent mother suffered from serious mental illnesses that impaired her parenting.

The mother sought sole decision-making and primary residence, arguing the father's persistent conflict caused the child's anxiety.

The court found no evidence of serious mental illness on the mother's part.

The court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making authority, with the father receiving parenting time three weekends out of four.

The court also ordered the father to pay table child support based on an imputed income of $25,000, and established a rigid parenting schedule and communication protocol to minimize conflict.

This appeal concerned the equalization of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that full equalization would be unconscionable and in awarding only 10% of the full equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the conclusion of unconscionability was reasonable given the short marriage, the extent to which the appellant's net family property derived from gifts from the respondent, and the disproportionate financial contributions.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's discretion in setting the unequal division at 10%, rejecting the appellant's argument for a pro-rated division based on the length of cohabitation.

The applicant sought an interest in the respondent's home based on resulting trust, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and joint family venture, as well as the return of personal property.

The court found no unjust enrichment or resulting trust, concluding that the applicant contributed nothing to the home's acquisition and that the parties' financial arrangements were mutually beneficial, with the applicant also benefiting from creditor protection.

The court emphasized the applicant's lack of credibility and inconsistent financial disclosure.

All claims were dismissed.

Appeal from a motion judge's decision in a family law proceeding.

The appellant sought joint custody of one child, payment from trust funds for real estate commission and legal fees, and reimbursement for utility costs and repairs.

The respondent sought sole custody, child support, and reimbursement for university expenses.

The motion judge granted the respondent's custody claim on consent, awarded child support and section 7 expenses, limited the real estate commission, and found she lacked jurisdiction over repairs, utilities, and household contents as these pertained to a prior equalization order.

The motion judge awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed, challenging the motion judge's jurisdiction and factual findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly determined her jurisdiction and that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence.

The court declined to reconsider the motion judge's factual findings and costs award.

The Applicant sought costs totaling $165,618.82 after a six-day trial on financial issues, including income determination, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The Respondent argued for divided success and each party bearing their own costs.

The court found the Applicant marginally more successful, particularly regarding the date of separation and the valuation of the Respondent's business, where the Respondent's positions were less reasonable.

Neither party's offers to settle were severable, complicating the assessment of success.

Considering the reasonableness of the parties' conduct and the proportionality of costs, the court awarded the Applicant $30,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable from the Respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds, noting it was not a case for full recovery.

The appellants, parents of the wife in a family law proceeding, appealed a summary judgment that found no monies were due under a mortgage they held on the matrimonial home.

The central issue was whether funds provided by the appellants to pay off the existing conventional mortgage constituted a loan or a gift.

The motion judge found the transfers were gifts, not loans, based on the lack of any prior discussion of loan terms, absence of security documentation for earlier transfers, and the celebratory "mortgage free" event after the conventional mortgage was paid off.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual determinations.

The applicant mother sought to enforce an interim order for the respondent father to continue paying post-secondary tuition and living expenses for their two adult daughters, who are pursuing second and third degrees in the UK.

The father cross-moved to vary the order, seeking equal apportionment of expenses and further information regarding the daughters' financial contributions.

The court found a material change in the father's income due to currency devaluation and, on an interim basis, allocated 2018-2019 tuition and rent expenses equally between the parents.

The court emphasized the lack of information regarding the daughters' means and ordered the mother to provide comprehensive financial disclosure from the daughters to enable a proper Section 7 analysis.

This costs endorsement followed an interim spousal support motion where the respondent was entirely successful.

The court found the applicant's persistent failure to provide adequate financial disclosure to be unreasonable, complicating the matter and increasing litigation costs.

Applying the principles of costs from Serra v. Serra and the Family Law Rules, particularly Rule 24(11) and Rule 24(5) regarding party behaviour, and Rule 18(14) concerning offers to settle, the court determined that the applicant's conduct warranted a full recovery costs award.

The respondent had also beaten all her offers to settle.

The respondent wife moved for interim spousal support following a short 10-month marriage.

The applicant husband had sponsored the wife for Canadian citizenship and conceded entitlement to support but failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court imputed an annual income of $200,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and undisclosed assets/corporate interests.

The court ordered the husband to pay $4,595.00 per month in interim spousal support, retroactive to the date of the Answer, and lump sum retroactive support to the date of separation, considering the immigration sponsorship undertaking and the wife's need.

The husband was also directed to produce the sponsorship agreement and immigration file.

The applicant sought payment of trust funds from the sale of a home she renovated and owned, while the respondent counterclaimed for $90,000 in unpaid services allegedly rendered to the applicant's dance studio companies.

The court found the applicant was the sole owner of the property and entitled to the sale proceeds.

The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed as he failed to establish a contractual basis for the claimed fees, having agreed to cease receiving payments when the business struggled.