Raymond J. Wrubel

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a previous child support order, seeking to reinstate the terms of a 2004 separation agreement regarding post-secondary education expenses.

The respondent father sought a retroactive adjustment for alleged overpayments of section 7 expenses.

The court found the father intentionally under-employed, operating a business at a loss for over 10 years, and imputed his income at $100,000.

The mother, who claimed disability without medical evidence, had her income imputed at $84,000.

The court ordered the child to contribute $1,750 to his education, with the parents sharing the remaining post-secondary expenses pro rata based on their imputed incomes.

The respondent mother sought a stay pending appeal of an Ontario Court of Justice order requiring her to relocate the children’s primary residence to the Waterloo Region or risk losing primary care to the father.

Applying the test for a stay pending appeal in family law matters, the court considered whether the appeal raised a serious question, whether irreparable harm would occur absent a stay, and the balance of convenience, with the best interests of the children as the overriding consideration.

The court found arguable errors in the underlying decision, including the potential expansion of a prior order requiring the mother only to seek employment in the Waterloo Region into an obligation to relocate, and concerns that the custody determination did not fully engage the statutory best interests factors under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court also concluded that forcing a relocation before the appeal could cause irreparable harm to the mother’s employment and disrupt the children’s stability.

The balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending the appeal.

The defendant vendor brought a motion to strike the claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging nondisclosure of a latent defect in a commercial property.

The purchaser relied on a newspaper article quoting a director of the vendor joking that the building was “haunted,” asserting that this indicated an undisclosed death or murder at the property.

The court held there was no evidence that a death had occurred and no evidence that the property suffered from any defect rendering it unfit or dangerous.

Allegations based on rumours of ghosts or property stigma did not constitute a latent defect requiring disclosure.

Summary judgment was granted as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.