R. Jonathan McKinnon

The applicant father brought a motion to terminate his child support obligations for his two adult children and to rescind any arrears.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing that the younger child remained a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act due to various disabilities preventing him from withdrawing from her charge.

The court found that the mother failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of the alleged disabilities and noted the child had successfully obtained employment and Employment Insurance benefits.

The court terminated child support for both children, recalculated the amounts owed based on the father's income, and fixed the arrears at $1,370.

This trial decision addresses complex family law issues including custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization payment.

The court awarded sole custody of the child to the applicant mother, Xu Wang, but significantly expanded the respondent father, Wan-Peng Sun's, parenting time beyond her proposal.

The judge criticized the mother's conduct in limiting access and found her stalking allegations against the father unsubstantiated.

The decision details the calculation of retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, including a lump sum payment, and orders for an equalization payment.

The divorce claim was severed to proceed separately.

The applicant sought a declaration that funds in jointly held bank accounts formed part of the deceased's estate under a resulting trust.

Applying the presumption governing gratuitous transfers to independent adult children, the court held the respondents rebutted the presumption on a balance of probabilities through objective and documentary evidence showing a longstanding intention to benefit the respondent daughter by survivorship.

The court declined to strike challenged affidavit evidence, but accorded it little weight.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order of Crown wardship for three children.

The parents, who arrived as refugees and faced significant intellectual and physical disabilities, struggled to provide adequate care despite extensive community support.

The court granted summary judgment for Crown wardship, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the parents' inability to care for the children.

However, the court found the society failed to establish that there was no triable issue regarding access between the parents and the children, and ordered a trial on the issue of access.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a 2005 settlement for the sale of shares, arguing he lacked mental capacity to consent and instruct counsel at the time.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant failed to prove lack of capacity, lack of instructions, the respondents' awareness of any incapacity, or that the settlement was unfair.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to award the appellant interest on the $700,000 purchase price, as the respondents had the benefit of the appreciating shares in the intervening years.

The complainant, a black woman, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her by refusing to rent her a house in the Orchard Park area of London, Ontario because of her race.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents' agent intentionally refused to show or rent available properties to the complainant after meeting her in person, despite having previously indicated over the telephone that the properties were available.

The Board held the corporate respondent, its president, and its agent jointly and severally liable for violating the Human Rights Code.

The complainant was awarded $200 in special damages and $2,500 in general damages for mental anguish.