Self-represented

This decision addresses a 35-year marital history between Lana Morris and Joseph Morris, culminating in their separation and subsequent family law litigation.

The court resolves complex property, equalization, and tort claims, including the valuation and division of pensions, vehicles, and business assets, as well as claims for damages arising from domestic violence.

The court finds that the parties were not living separate and apart during the disputed years, includes the value of the NH pension in the equalization calculation, and awards general and aggravated damages for tortious conduct.

The court also grants a permanent restraining order and provides detailed directions on costs.

This decision addresses the imputation of income for child support purposes where the father was found intentionally underemployed and failed to provide full financial disclosure, including income from a professional corporation and rental properties.

The court imputed income to the father based on his earning capacity, rental income, and corporate benefits, rejecting his lower reported income and job search claims.

The mother’s income was accepted as disclosed.

The court also considered the appropriate sharing of special and extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines and declined to order life insurance as security due to lack of evidence but ordered a charge on the father’s Ontario properties to secure support obligations given his relocation to Jamaica and non-compliance history.

This decision arises from an uncontested hearing regarding the sale and division of proceeds of a jointly owned home following the separation of the parties.

The applicant, Rayanne Headrick, sought an order for sale of the home, reimbursement for expenses incurred post-separation, and other related relief.

The respondent, James McNeill, was noted in default and did not participate in the proceedings.

The court ordered the sale of the property, reimbursement to the applicant for certain expenses, and dismissed claims for spousal support and a restraining order.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

This decision addresses parenting and child support arrangements for a 13-year-old child with special needs, focusing on primary residence, decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and retroactive child support.

The court grants the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, recognizing her as the consistent and responsible parent who has met the child's special needs despite inadequate financial support and the father's obstructive conduct.

The father is found to have been deliberately underemployed and financially manipulative, leading to imputation of income for child support calculations.

The court orders retroactive child support and section 7 expenses contributions, with detailed findings on the reasonableness and necessity of claimed expenses, and sets a payment plan for arrears.

The court granted the respondent husband's motion to strike out the applicant wife's pleadings due to her repeated breaches of court orders, including failure to attend questioning and failure to provide proof of listing the jointly owned property in China for sale.

The court found the breaches willful and proportionate to the remedy of striking pleadings, and awarded costs to the husband.

The wife was given a final opportunity to restore her application by complying with outstanding orders and paying costs.

The court considered costs following a full settlement in a family law case involving decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing the final order was nearly identical to her earlier offer to settle and that the respondent acted unreasonably by not responding.

The court found the respondent had, in fact, responded with a detailed offer and that both parties had reasonable positions, with success divided on various issues.

The court determined that full indemnity costs were not warranted, and awarded the applicant $18,000 in costs, finding this amount fair and proportionate given the circumstances and the divided success.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Kurt Ashley Ritchie from an order upholding, with modification, a separation agreement between himself and Jessica Bortoleti De Oliveira.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s adjustment of child support or in the costs award, which reflected divided success and the parties’ conduct.

The court emphasized the ongoing obligation for both parties to exchange financial information annually and confirmed that no costs would be awarded for the appeal.

This decision addresses interim parenting time and school attendance for two children in a high-conflict family law matter.

The court maintains a week on/week off shared parenting schedule, with the caveat that if the mother fails to ensure the children’s school attendance, the father will have primary care during the school week.

The court declines to order a change of school or police enforcement at this stage, and orders the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) to ascertain the children’s views and preferences.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the father’s appeal from a family law order that varied parenting and support arrangements.

The court found that the trial judge’s reasons were clear, sound, and based on the evidence, and that the findings were consistent with the Divorce Act.

The trial judge’s decision to grant the mother primary care and sole decision-making authority, as well as to vary child and spousal support, was upheld.

The court emphasized deference to the trial judge’s factual findings and the best interests of the children.

The applicant, Paul Mitchell, sought an order for full carriage of the sale of the parties’ jointly owned matrimonial home and for the respondent, Susan Craddock, to vacate the property by a specified date.

The court reviewed the parties’ history, including previous orders for sale and the respondent’s repeated non-compliance.

The court granted Mr. Mitchell full carriage of the sale, dispensed with Ms. Craddock’s consent and signature, and ordered her to vacate the home by June 13, 2025, enforceable by the Sheriff if necessary.

The applicant, Paul Mitchell, sought an order for full carriage of the sale of the parties’ jointly owned matrimonial home and for the respondent, Susan Craddock, to vacate the property by a specified date.

The court reviewed the parties’ history, including previous orders for sale and the respondent’s repeated non-compliance.

The court granted Mr. Mitchell full carriage of the sale, dispensed with Ms. Craddock’s consent and signature, and ordered her to vacate the home by June 13, 2025, enforceable by the Sheriff if necessary.

This decision addresses the application of s. 530 of the Criminal Code regarding an accused's right to a trial in the official language of their choice.

The court held that the Crown met its burden to show that Kevin Nguyen could not have his trial in French due to insufficient proficiency to follow proceedings or instruct counsel in French.

The ruling emphasizes that the right to a French trial requires actual ability to participate meaningfully in that language, not merely a preference or cultural identity.

The decision also clarifies that administrative convenience is irrelevant and that the right to a fair trial may be compromised if the accused cannot follow the proceedings in the chosen language.

The Bank of Nova Scotia sought leave to issue a notice of garnishment to enforce a 2014 judgment against Ronald William Arnold, after more than six years had passed.

The court reviewed the requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure for seeking such leave, including the need to show no waiver or acquiescence by the plaintiff and the absence of detrimental reliance by the defendant.

The court found that the Bank had made continuous efforts to enforce the judgment and contact the defendant, who acknowledged but refused to pay the debt.

The court granted leave to issue the notice of garnishment.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.