Sean D. Heeley

The trial addressed retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support following the resolution of parenting and equalization issues.

The court determined that the applicant did not owe retroactive child support but owed retroactive spousal support of $51,238.

Ongoing child and spousal support were set based on the applicant's income of $153,449 and the respondent's imputed income of $25,000.

Spousal support was made subject to a material change of circumstances upon the applicant's actual retirement.

The court also addressed the imputation of income for the respondent and the add-back of certain business expenses for the applicant.

The applicant sought sole guardianship of Juliet Eastlyn Hamilton for personal care under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, to implement a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) direction and manage end-of-life care.

The co-guardian, Nicole Hamilton, and Juliet's spouse, Trevor Hamilton, opposed this, citing Juliet's religious beliefs and previous wishes for all possible steps to prolong life.

The court granted sole guardianship to the applicant, finding that his request was in Juliet's best interests based on objective medical evidence of her deteriorating health and constant pain, and that his intention was not to actively terminate life but to allow natural progression with a DNR.

In a last-minute motion, the court addressed a dispute between separated parents regarding their three-year-old child's junior kindergarten enrollment.

The mother, who had unilaterally relocated to Niagara-on-the-Lake, sought to enroll the child there.

The father sought enrollment in Hamilton, consistent with a separation agreement and the child's established Hamilton-based status quo.

The court emphasized that the child's best interests must prevail over a "fait accompli" created by one parent's unilateral action.

It found that the mother's relocation jeopardized the successful equal-time-sharing arrangement and that major changes with mobility implications should not be made on a temporary basis without compelling circumstances.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and granted the father's request for enrollment in Hamilton, establishing a temporary equal time-sharing arrangement with the mother responsible for transportation.

The applicants sought a declaration of a prescriptive easement over a portion of the respondents' adjacent property for vehicle and pedestrian ingress and egress to their garage and parking area.

The court applied the four-part test for prescriptive easements, including the requirement of 'reasonable necessity' and continuous, uninterrupted, open, peaceful, and 'as of right' use for 20 years prior to land titles registration.

Finding the applicants' evidence compelling and the respondents' counter-arguments insufficient, the court granted the easement and ordered the removal of a fence erected by the respondents.

In a family law motion concerning support-related disclosure, the court granted extensive financial and corporate disclosure to permit the moving party's accountant to assess the responding party's income for child and spousal support purposes.

The court found the responding party's financial affairs and related corporate structures sufficiently complex to require expert review, and applied the Rule 24(12) interim disbursements jurisprudence to level the playing field.

An interim disbursement of $14,125 was ordered for the accounting report, but the request for interim legal fees was refused.

The responding party's request for disclosure from a non-party alleged common-law partner was adjourned because the non-party had not been served.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension, arguing he was unable to provide a second breathalyzer sample due to acid reflux and stomach cramps from drinking toilet water in his cell.

The Tribunal found the appellant's medical condition was mild and did not justify his refusal to comply with the breath demand.

The Tribunal noted the appellant initially refused the second test on the basis that he had already provided two samples, not for medical reasons.

The suspension was confirmed.

Dispute among siblings and co-executors regarding administration of an estate where the primary assets consisted of two real properties specifically gifted under a will and holograph codicil.

Motions for directions were brought amid conflict between executors over whether to sell the properties to satisfy estate debts or allow a beneficiary additional time to fund payment of those obligations.

The court found the administration of the estate had stalled due to a serious breakdown in trust between the executors and beneficiaries.

To preserve the estate and ensure proper administration, both executors were removed and replaced with an independent professional executor.

The newly appointed executor was directed to determine the estate’s debts and expenses and administer the estate accordingly, including potential sale of property if necessary.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of his three-year-old child to California.

The respondent mother had travelled to Ontario with the child with the father's consent but later refused to return.

The court found that the child was not wrongfully removed, as the initial travel was consensual.

Furthermore, the father's subsequent action of shredding the mother's US immigration papers constituted active acquiescence to the child remaining in Ontario.

The court also held that returning the child to California would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to the mother's inability to re-enter the US and the child's special medical needs.

The application was dismissed.

The children's aid society sought Crown wardship for four children.

The mother and her current partner sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The father of one of the children sought custody of his daughter.

The court found all four children in need of protection due to the parents' history of domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, and unstable relationships.

The court concluded that the mother and her current partner lacked the insight and ability to safely parent the children.

The father of one child was found to be more suited as an access parent due to his unresolved anger management and substance abuse issues.

The court ordered Crown wardship for all four children, with access granted to the father of one child at the society's discretion, and denied access to the mother and her current partner for the three youngest children.

The testator left a life interest in the residue of his estate to his wife, directing that upon her death, the residue be divided equally between his son and daughter, 'per stirpes'.

The son predeceased the life tenant, leaving his estate to his second wife.

The application judge held that the phrase 'per stirpes' indicated an intention to benefit the son's children, rather than his estate or the surviving daughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while a gift to named children 'per stirpes' can be contradictory, in this context it conveyed the testator's intention to benefit his children's children if either child predeceased the life tenant.