Samantha Eisen

The respondent husband brought a motion for partition and sale of the jointly held matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

The applicant wife opposed the sale, asserting outstanding family law claims including spousal support, equalization, and tort damages for alleged intimate partner violence.

The court found that the wife had legitimate family law claims that would be unfairly prejudiced by a sale and disbursement of proceeds, that the children would experience negative impacts beyond the inevitable disruptions of separation, and that the wife qualified as a vulnerable spouse.

As the sale proceeds would need to remain in trust pending resolution of the financial claims, there was no practical advantage to forcing the sale.

Motion dismissed.

The appellant mother sought to change a custody order following her relocation from the Niagara region to the Ottawa area.

The trial judge rejected a proposed settlement, dismissed the motion to change, and ordered the children's primary residence to remain with the respondent father in Niagara, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal.

One week before the Supreme Court hearing, the parties jointly advised that changes had occurred affecting the record, including that the daughter had been residing in Ottawa for over a year.

The parties had not filed a motion for new evidence regarding the children's current best interests, leaving the record incomplete.

The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal without costs, directing any ongoing dispute to be resolved in the Superior Court through a variation order.

Following a motion for temporary spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party, as the motion primarily concerned the quantum of support rather than entitlement, and the final order was closer to the applicant's offer to settle.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $4,149.36 on a partial recovery basis.

This appeal concerns a motion to change a custody and access order.

The trial judge rejected a proposed settlement negotiated by the parties during trial without providing reasons, then proceeded to hear the trial and rendered a decision maintaining the children's primary residence with the respondent in the Niagara region rather than allowing them to move to Ottawa with the appellant.

The majority upheld the trial judge's decision on the merits, finding that although the trial judge erred in failing to provide reasons for rejecting the settlement, the findings made after trial confirm the custody order was in the children's best interests.

The majority reduced the costs award from $40,000 to $30,000.

Justice Nordheimer dissented, arguing that the trial judge's knowledge of the settlement terms compromised his impartiality and that the settlement should have been approved.