Sarah Frances Conlin

The applicant and respondent each filed a 14B motion seeking the release of funds from the sale of their matrimonial home and reimbursement for renovation costs.

A dispute arose over the exact amount of reimbursement and the need for documentary proof, despite an earlier agreement capping the reimbursement at $7,500.

The court found the litigation of a minor dispute unnecessary and emphasized the parties' and counsels' duty to promote the objectives of the Family Law Rules.

The motions for costs were dismissed, and the court ordered the release of $75,000 to each party and a $7,500 reimbursement to the applicant, consistent with the original agreement.

A wife brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, permission to remove her special needs horses and donkey, partition and sale of the home, and return of her laptops, following separation and criminal charges preventing her from accessing the home.

The husband cross-moved for exclusive possession.

The court granted the husband temporary exclusive possession until January 31, 2024, after which the wife would have exclusive possession until the property's sale.

The court ordered the husband to facilitate proper care for the animals by contacting their regular veterinarian and ensuring training for caregivers.

The husband was also ordered to return the wife's laptops and pay costs for breaching a prior consent order.

The appellant wife appealed a summary judgment dismissing her application for equalization and spousal support, brought over a decade after their divorce.

She alleged the respondent husband misrepresented his financial position during their divorce negotiations, claiming $0 net worth while bank disclosures showed $21 million.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by: 1) allowing the summary judgment motion without the respondent filing a required answer and financial statement, which is crucial for financial disclosure in family law; and 2) misinterpreting the test for extending limitation periods under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act, by requiring "established fraud" instead of the lower threshold of "apparent grounds for relief" and "good faith" delay.

The court emphasized the paramount importance of financial disclosure in family law proceedings.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his two young children to Massachusetts, their habitual residence, after the mother wrongfully retained them in Ontario following a consented visit.

The court found that Massachusetts was the children's habitual residence, the father had custody rights which he was exercising, and the mother's retention was wrongful due to deceit.

The court dismissed the mother's defence of grave risk of harm, finding the alleged abuse insufficient to meet the high threshold.

The children were ordered to be returned to Massachusetts.

This endorsement confirms Justice Diamond's appointment as the case management judge for the proceeding.

It addresses the scheduling of a long motion concerning jurisdiction (Ontario or Massachusetts) and a potential Hague Convention application for the return of children to Massachusetts.

The judge directs that the Hague Convention application should ideally proceed earlier and separately from the jurisdiction issue.

The respondent in matrimonial litigation moved to have the former case management judge recuse himself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The new case management judge dismissed the motion, finding it premature and pointless as the former judge was not scheduled for future involvement.

The court determined the respondent had an ulterior motive to revisit prior rulings and that the motion constituted an abuse of process, contrary to the Family Law Rules' objectives of saving time and expense.

A costs decision following a trial on an application for access to a child.

The father sought access to his biological daughter, born in 2010, whom he had minimal contact with since 2014.

The mother opposed the access request and sought a restraining order.

The court dismissed both the father's access application and the mother's restraining order request.

This decision addresses the costs consequences of the trial, with the mother seeking $32,498.38 and the father seeking $17,736.95.

The court awarded costs to the mother as the substantially successful party, fixing costs at $15,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

A father residing in Afghanistan sought an order for weekly Skype access to his seven-year-old daughter who lives in Canada with her mother, stepfather, and half-brother.

The father claimed he had a right to know his biological daughter.

The mother opposed the application, arguing that the child had no relationship with the father, believed the stepfather was her biological father, and that access would be harmful to the child's stability and wellbeing.

The court dismissed the father's application for access, finding that the child's best interests were served by maintaining her stable family environment and that the risks of introducing contact with a stranger far outweighed any potential benefits.

The appellant husband appealed the trial judge's decision to set aside a separation agreement on the grounds of material misrepresentation regarding the value of his company, Renegade Capital Corporation, at the date of marriage.

The husband had valued Renegade at $7.6 million using book value, when the trial judge found it was worth nil based on market value analysis.

The trial judge also recalculated the equalization payment and awarded retroactive child support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the husband had breached his disclosure obligations and materially misrepresented his assets.

The court affirmed that the duty to disclose includes the duty to fairly value assets, and that the onus is on the party disclosing to establish the recipient's actual knowledge of any falsehood.

The applicant sought to garnish the respondent's Retirement Compensation Arrangement (RCA) to enforce a substantial judgment for equalization, support, and costs.

The respondent disputed the garnishment, asserting the RCA was exempt under the Pension Benefits Act.

The court held that the RCA, as defined by subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, constituted a "prescribed" pension plan under section 47(3) of Regulation 909 of the Pension Benefits Act, thereby rendering it not exempt from garnishment.

The respondent's dispute was dismissed.