Stacey Mintsopoulos

The applicant brought a motion for vacant possession and sole carriage of the sale of a property she solely owned, where the respondent had been residing since their separation.

The respondent opposed the motion, asserting constructive trust and joint family venture claims.

The court granted the motion, finding that the respondent's equitable claims did not prevent the sale, as his interests could be protected by holding the net proceeds in trust.

The respondent was ordered to vacate the property within 45 days, and the applicant was granted sole carriage of the sale due to the respondent's uncooperative conduct.

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.

The Applicant sought temporary spousal support and child support (s. 7 expenses), while the Respondent sought equal parenting time.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the Applicant and $84,000 to the Respondent, ordering the Respondent to pay $201 per month in temporary spousal support and 72% of s. 7 expenses.

Regarding parenting time, the court found the Applicant's proposed restrictive schedule unsupported by evidence and ordered a more expansive schedule for the Respondent, including alternate weekends and every Wednesday overnight, while maintaining the Applicant as the primary residential parent.

The parties were referred to mediation for a comprehensive parenting plan.

The moving party father brought a motion to vary a support order and for parenting time.

The responding party mother sought to dismiss the motion due to the father's serial non-compliance with previous court orders, including failure to pay nearly $200,000 in support arrears and costs.

The court found the father's motion thoroughly devoid of merit, noting his failure to comply with disclosure orders, his apparent bigamous marriage, and his hidden cash income.

The court dismissed the father's motion and ordered him to disclose details regarding his new marriage and residence, granting the mother leave to bring a contempt motion if he failed to comply.