Reesa Merle Heft

The case involved two motions: the Applicant sought temporary spousal and child support retroactive to June 1, 2021, and the Respondent sought to remove the Applicant's counsel, claim tort damages for intrusion upon seclusion, and prevent reliance on improperly obtained emails.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for tort damages as improperly pleaded and premature, and dismissed the motion to remove counsel, finding no evidence of confidential information being shared with counsel.

The court granted the Applicant's motion for interim spousal support of $4,000 per month and child support of $329 per month, both retroactive to July 1, 2021, after imputing an income of $14,500 to the Applicant and deducting the child's ODSP benefits from the child support calculation.

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.

The applicant, Ernest Below, and the respondent, Stacy Sheene, disputed costs following motions concerning the children's habitual residence and removal from Ontario.

The court had previously ruled that Florida had jurisdiction over the children and ordered Mr. Below to return them to Ms. Sheene.

This endorsement addresses the costs of those motions.

Ms. Sheene, as the successful party, sought costs on a full recovery basis, alleging bad faith by Mr. Below.

Mr. Below argued for each party to bear their own costs or for partial indemnity.

The court found Ms. Sheene presumptively entitled to costs but rejected the claim for full recovery, finding no bad faith by Mr. Below.

The court quantified Ms. Sheene's costs on a partial indemnity scale, adjusting hourly rates for inflation and assessing the reasonableness of time spent and disbursements.

The respondent brought a motion to file an amended answer over three-and-a-half years after filing the original answer, seeking to change final orders that had been in place for nearly three years.

The respondent sought joint custody with shared residency, substantially increased access, termination of child support obligations, and dismissal of the applicant's spousal support claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an amended answer should not be accepted in proceedings to amend final orders, and that accepting it would disadvantage the applicant and restart the entire litigation.

The court held that the proper forum for such requests is a motion to change, not an amended answer under the Family Law Rules.

The applicant, Ernest Below, brought a motion for custody of the parties' two young children after the respondent, Stacy Sheene, moved with them from Florida to Ontario.

Sheene had returned to Florida for medical treatment, leaving the children with Below's parents, and intended to return to Florida with the children due to a breakdown in financial support and relationship with Below.

Below obtained a temporary order preventing their removal from Canada.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the custody and access issues, finding that the children's habitual residence remained Florida.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, ordered the termination of the temporary order, and directed the children's return to Florida in Ms. Sheene's care, with Mr. Below responsible for travel expenses.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where Rajeev Singh Chandel was successful in obtaining an order for payment out of funds held in trust.

Alka Singh failed to comply with court directions regarding the submission of costs materials, including page limits and deadlines, and her submissions were significantly overdue and over-length.

The court found Mr. Chandel was entitled to costs under rule 24(1) and rejected Ms. Singh's arguments of misconduct, indigence, or that Mr. Chandel's success was a "technicality." The court awarded Mr. Chandel partial indemnity costs, recognizing the additional work necessitated by Ms. Singh's non-compliance with procedural directions, specifically her excessive motion record.

Costs decision following a family law motion concerning temporary custody, parenting schedule, and interim child and spousal support.

The moving party sought costs after obtaining disclosure orders, an interim parenting schedule, and interim support.

The court found the responding party acted unreasonably by failing for years to file an answer or financial statement, ignoring disclosure requests, and unilaterally reducing support payments.

The court emphasized the obligation under the Family Law Rules to make timely disclosure and promote the primary objective of resolving cases justly and efficiently.

The moving party was found to be the more reasonable litigant and entitled to costs.

Following a lengthy marriage, the parties disputed equalization of net family property, child support, and claims of constructive trust.

The court resolved numerous valuation issues including alleged loans from the respondent’s mother, the value of the matrimonial home and cottage, pensions, vehicles, and other assets.

The court rejected allegations that the respondent had diverted funds to his mother to defeat equalization, finding instead that most earlier loans had been legitimately repaid and that approximately $151,000 remained owing as of separation.

The matrimonial home was valued at $410,000 and the cottage at $655,000, with a discounted contingent capital gains tax liability recognized.

Constructive trust claims by both parties were dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the statutory equalization regime under the Family Law Act should normally govern property division between married spouses.