Samantha Nazik Dineno

The moving party sought a stay of a 2019 interim without prejudice spousal support order and a direction that the Family Responsibility Office refrain from reporting arrears to credit bureaus.

The moving party retired in 2021 after being laid off, reducing his annual income from over $280,000 to approximately $55,000, while the support obligation of $5,700 per month remained in force.

The court applied the four-part test from Clark v. Vanderhoeven and found the moving party established a strong prima facie case for variation, clear hardship, urgency, and clean hands.

The motion was granted and the support order and support deduction order were stayed pending final determination of spousal support issues.

The applicants, three siblings, sought compensation for their claimed interest in a townhouse property (Haig property) purchased by the respondents.

The applicants alleged a verbal agreement to invest equally in the property with the respondents, contributing to downpayment loans, mortgage payments, and carrying costs.

The respondents denied any such agreement, claiming the applicants were tenants paying below-market rent.

The court found a joint investment agreement existed based on extensive evidence including expense tracking spreadsheets, e-transfer records, and testimony.

The court awarded each applicant $155,000 representing their one-fifth interest in the net sale proceeds.

Additionally, the applicant Kiran was awarded non-compensatory spousal support based on need and her chronic medical condition, with retroactive support from October 2021 and ongoing monthly support until September 2032.

This trial determined whether funds advanced by the respondent grandparents to the applicant mother and respondent father during their marriage constituted a gift or a loan for the purpose of property equalization.

The applicant argued the funds were a gift, while the respondents contended they were a loan.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, finding that the applicant failed to rebut it.

The court also considered factors for determining a loan, concluding that the funds were indeed a loan based on the grandparents' financial circumstances, their expectation of repayment, and evidence of partial repayments.

The applicant's testimony was found inconsistent and not credible.

A focused Family Law Rule 1 trial concerning custody and access of a child born February 5, 2012.

The parties settled custody (sole to mother), child support, and mobility restrictions during trial.

The remaining issue was access.

The applicant sought equal time sharing on a 2-2-3 schedule; the respondent sought continuation of the existing temporary order.

The court found the respondent to be the more credible witness and determined that the current access schedule (Wednesday overnight and alternate weekends) was in the child's best interests.

The court rejected the applicant's proposal for equal shared parenting, finding that the child has significant anxiety and difficulty with transitions, and that the respondent is better positioned to meet the child's emotional and developmental needs.

The court also found the applicant lacked insight into the child's needs and had engaged in aggressive litigation tactics.

This is a costs decision following a motion for striking pleadings and summary judgment in a family law matter involving custody, primary residence, child support, and financial disclosure.

The applicant sought sole custody and child support; the respondent failed to comply with disclosure orders and court-ordered child support payments.

The applicant's motion was successful, resulting in sole custody to the applicant, imputed income-based child support, and retroactive support orders.

The costs decision addresses the applicant's claim for full indemnity costs based on the respondent's unreasonable conduct and non-compliance with court orders.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings for failure to comply with disclosure orders and sought summary judgment for custody, access, child support, retroactive child support, and special expenses.

The parties had separated in August 2011 after a common law relationship beginning in 2000.

The father had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure despite court orders and had demonstrated an inability to communicate with the mother regarding parenting decisions.

The court struck the father's pleadings and granted summary judgment in favour of the mother, awarding her sole custody, specifying the father's access schedule, and imputing income for child support calculations.