Rick Toor

The applicant and respondent were unmarried spouses who separated in 2015.

The applicant owned the home they lived in.

Following criminal charges, the applicant was forced to leave the home, and the respondent remained.

The applicant brought an application for a writ of possession and an order that the respondent vacate the property.

The respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

The court found that the respondent had no legal interest in the property and was remaining on the property without lawful justification, constituting trespass.

The court granted the applicant a writ of possession and ordered the respondent to vacate the property.

The applicant wife sought temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, registered in the husband's sole name, after the husband was removed due to criminal charges and the husband's mother created a toxic living environment.

The husband's mother, a co-respondent, sought to vacate the exclusive possession order, claiming a beneficial interest and possessory rights to the home.

The court found the wife's evidence credible regarding the untenable living conditions and the children's distress.

The court determined that the husband's mother had no statutory right to possession under the Family Law Act and failed to establish a prima facie case for a constructive or resulting trust interest that would grant her possessory rights.

Considering the best interests of the children and the wife's lack of alternative accommodation, the court granted the wife temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

A child protection trial involving three children (AB, AM, and MM) brought by the Halton Children's Aid Society.

The mother (MM) and father of two of the children (DJ) were convicted of sexual crimes against the mother's oldest child (JB).

The court found all three children in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act based on risk of sexual molestation or exploitation and, for two children, parental unavailability.

AB was placed with her biological father under a supervision order; AM and MM were placed with their maternal aunt and uncle under a supervision order.

The mother was granted minimal access (one weekly phone call and one monthly letter) with no in-person access ordered at the time of judgment.

This trial decision addresses corollary relief following a marital separation, focusing on financial issues including income imputation, child support, section 7 expenses, equalization of net family property, and spousal support.

The court imputed a higher income to one spouse due to non-disclosure and unreliable testimony, leading to orders for retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as a significant equalization payment.

Spousal support obligations were deemed satisfied by a prior judgment.

The court also considered and denied a request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court heard two motions brought by respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother sought a declaration that she and three youngest children are Native and/or eligible for status as Indians under the Child and Family Services Act, and requested that the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte be served and permitted to participate in proceedings.

The respondent father D.M.'s motion was dismissed as he did not appear.

The court adjourned the mother's motion to May 6, 2016, and made orders regarding service on the Band, participation at hearings, and case management to address delays caused by the parties' conduct and the voluminous materials filed.