Robert F. MacLeod

The applicant sought a one-half interest in the respondent's pension from the start of their cohabitation in 1991, arguing unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The respondent contended the applicant was only entitled to a share accumulated during their marriage (2012-2014).

The court found no unjust enrichment or joint family venture prior to marriage, noting separate finances, the respondent's self-funded education, and the applicant's limited contributions to household and childcare responsibilities after becoming unemployed.

The applicant's claim for a pre-marital pension share was dismissed, but he was awarded a lump sum representing half the pension value accumulated during the marriage.

The court addressed the calculation of spousal support following the respondent's sale of a farm property, which resulted in a significant, non-recurring capital gain.

The central issue was whether and to what extent this capital gain should be included in the respondent's income for spousal support purposes, particularly after the cessation of previously imputed farming income.

The court considered the Child Support Guidelines' provisions for non-recurring amounts and the need for fairness in light of both parties' circumstances.

The trial addressed custody and access for three daughters following a contentious marital breakdown.

The applicant mother sought custody of all three, while the respondent father sought custody of all three or a continuation of the interim order.

The court found that the mother's actions contributed significantly to the damaged relationship with the two older daughters, B.M. and J.M.1, and dismissed her alienation claim against the father.

Custody of the youngest daughter, D.M., remained with the mother, while custody of B.M. and J.M.1 was awarded to the father.

Access for the older daughters to the mother was scaled back, with mandatory counselling for all parties and children to facilitate relationship repair.

The applicant sought spousal support, access to the children, and an equalization of net family properties following a ten-year cohabitation.

The court found the applicant intentionally underemployed, failed to disclose significant assets including an inheritance, and made no financial contribution to the family.

The court dismissed the spousal support claim, imputed income to the applicant, and ordered an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, resulting in no equalization payment to the applicant.