Rachel Hill

The respondent, Paul Wynn, brought a motion to bifurcate two key issues in a complex family law proceeding: the enforceability of a marriage contract and the determination of Paul's beneficial interest in significant family properties and businesses, including bare trust claims.

The added respondents supported the bifurcation of the property issue.

The applicant, Leslie Wynn, opposed the motion, seeking a single trial for all issues.

The court granted the motion, ordering the severance of issues into three separate trials or segments.

The court found that bifurcation was convenient and in the interests of justice due to the case's complexity, the potential for significant cost and time savings by avoiding extensive valuations, and the increased prospects for early settlement, concluding that there would be no undue prejudice to the applicant.

The Applicant Mother brought a motion seeking an order for the children to attend a specific private school for the 2024/2025 academic year, with tuition and expenses to be divided as a section 7 expense (Applicant 30%, Respondent 70%).

She also sought a psycho-educational assessment for the children.

The court granted the private school attendance, ordering equal sharing of tuition and expenses, but dismissed the request for a psycho-educational assessment without prejudice due to missing procedural details.

The decision emphasized the children's best interests, particularly stability and continuity in schooling, and found the private school expenses appropriate given the parties' combined financial resources, including proceeds from property sales.

The parties settled their family law litigation, and the respondent sought costs of $28,764.15 while the applicant argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found that both parties had a measure of success in the settlement, meaning there was no clear capitulation by either side.

However, the court awarded $6,500 in partial recovery costs to the respondent because the applicant's unreasonable failure to provide required financial disclosure necessitated the proceedings.

The moving party brought a motion to consolidate the responding party's civil proceeding for defamation and malicious prosecution with their ongoing family law proceeding, and to strike the responding party's pleadings for non-compliance with multiple court orders.

The court granted the consolidation to avoid inconsistent findings and duplicate legal fees.

The court also struck the responding party's pleadings due to her blatant disregard for twelve previous court orders, her inappropriate conduct in stealing the moving party's private emails, and her failure to attend the motion hearing.

The matter was directed to proceed to an uncontested trial, and the moving party was awarded full indemnity costs.

The applicant sought interim relief, which was granted by an earlier endorsement.

The respondent failed to file responding materials by the deadline and requested an adjournment to allow newly retained counsel to finalize materials and argue the motion, particularly regarding access.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing the motion was moot as the children had been returned to her.

The court acknowledged the respondent's delay but found it was not in a position to foreclose the respondent's access request without reviewing his sworn evidence.

The motion was adjourned for a further telephone conference to assess the urgency of the respondent's access terms.

Interim orders were made regarding primary care, communication through Our Family Wizard, and reservation of costs.

The applicant sought urgent relief for the return of two children, alleging unlawful withholding by the respondent amidst the COVID-19 situation.

The court found the matter urgent and granted the applicant's interim motion, ordering the immediate return of the children to the applicant's care and control, maintaining the status quo.

The respondent's claim of a 50/50 parenting agreement was not supported by the evidence.