Pierre Sicco

The applicant husband sought to set aside a separation agreement, arguing lack of financial disclosure and unconscionability.

The court found the husband had sufficient knowledge of the wife's significant assets and liabilities, and that the agreement was not unconscionable.

The court upheld the separation agreement but varied child support, imputing a higher income to the husband based on his multiple sources of undisclosed income.

The wife's claim for reimbursement of credit card debt was dismissed as the agreement stipulated each party was responsible for their own debts.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs following successful motions related to the enforcement of a Consent and Minutes of Settlement for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed, arguing her actions were not in bad faith and she lacked the financial means to pay.

The court found the Respondent's behaviour unreasonable, particularly her attempts to renegotiate or set aside the settlement and her persistence in positions already dismissed.

While not constituting bad faith, her conduct warranted a costs award.

The Applicant was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, reduced by 10 hours due to issues with his counsel's drafting of the consent order.

The total award of $34,394 was ordered to be paid from the Respondent's share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought a vesting order for the matrimonial home to ensure its sale, following the respondent's initial non-compliance with an order to sign a listing agreement.

The court dismissed the vesting order motion, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria under s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act and the Norris test, as there was no underlying claim to ownership or payment order.

Despite the dismissal of the vesting order, the respondent was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs to the applicant due to her unreasonable conduct in initially refusing to sign the listing agreement.

The respondent brought a motion for partition and sale of the jointly owned common residence.

The applicant opposed, arguing sole equitable ownership due to extensive renovations and raising procedural objections regarding the motion's jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear motions for partition and sale under Rule 14 of the Family Law Rules, even for final orders, and dismissed the applicant's procedural arguments.

The motion for partition and sale was granted, as the applicant failed to demonstrate the high threshold of malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct required to resist the sale.

The net proceeds from the sale were ordered to be paid into court or trust.

The applicants, the son and daughter-in-law of the incapable respondent, brought an application for the passing of accounts and the removal of the respondent's daughter as joint attorney for property.

The court found that the daughter had improperly taken funds from her mother's accounts for her personal use and had failed to provide a proper accounting as ordered.

The court ordered the daughter to repay $21,133.12 to her mother's estate, removed her as joint attorney for property, and refused to pass her accounts.