Pauline Cheuk Wai Leung

A complex family law trial involving equalization of net family property, child and spousal support, and fraudulent conveyance claims arising from the breakdown of a 17-year marriage.

The applicant wife sought equalization of property and support for three children.

The respondent husband, who had engaged in deceptive financial transactions including placing a mortgage on the matrimonial home without the wife's knowledge and selling it to a third party, was found to have fraudulently conveyed the property.

The court imputed income to the husband due to inadequate disclosure and awarded the wife an equalization payment, child support arrears, and section 7 expense contributions.

The court also addressed overlapping claims by multiple respondents and dismissed claims lacking evidentiary foundation.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment after noting the defendants in default for failing to file a statement of defence in a breach of contract claim regarding a share purchase agreement.

The self-represented individual defendant moved to set aside the noting in default, citing language barriers, confusion over legal representation, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding the defendant's explanations not credible and his conduct strategic and delaying.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $204,000 based on deemed admissions and documentary evidence.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought urgent motions regarding parenting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The primary unresolved issues were whether the applicant's adult daughter, an ICU nurse, should self-isolate from the children during parenting time, and where the children should reside if a household member exhibited COVID-19 symptoms.

The court ruled that the adult daughter did not need to self-isolate, emphasizing adherence to public health protocols and the lack of medical evidence supporting isolation.

For the second issue, the court directed parents to seek medical advice and follow Canada Public Health Protocols.

The Applicant, Xiaojun Jiang, and Respondent, Yurong Zeng, brought amended motions and cross-motions concerning their matrimonial home and other financial matters.

The Applicant sought the immediate sale of the matrimonial home at 41 Cathedral High Street, dispensing with the Respondent's consent, and payment of proceeds into court.

The Respondent sought exclusive possession of the same property, a change in access, interim disbursements, and a restraining order.

The court dismissed the Respondent's requests for exclusive possession, change in access, interim disbursements, and a restraining order, finding he could not afford the property and there were no grounds for a restraining order.

The court granted the Applicant's request for the sale of 41 Cathedral High Street, finding it necessary due to financial hardship and that the sale would not defeat any meritorious claims.

The Respondent's spousal consent to the listing and listing terms was dispensed with, with proceeds to be held in trust pending further court order.