Stephen P. Fleury

The father brought a motion to terminate child support for an adult child retroactive to January 1, 2010.

The evidence showed the child had resided primarily with the father since 2010, had completed college, and was working full-time as an automotive apprentice, rendering him financially independent.

The court found the child was no longer entitled to support but declined to terminate support retroactively due to the father's lengthy delay in bringing the motion and the likelihood the funds had already been spent.

The mother's cross-motion seeking a historical review of child support and extensive financial disclosure was dismissed due to her own delay in pursuing the claim.

Child support was terminated prospectively and the mother was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs.

Application concerning estate administration disputes between co-estate trustees relating to compensation, passing of accounts, and division of household contents of the deceased’s estate.

After addressing trustee compensation in a prior endorsement, the court determined the final distribution of contested household items between the two beneficiaries.

The court adopted a fairness-based approach, considering relationships to specific items and aiming for rough equality between the parties.

Detailed schedules allocated specific items to each party and vested ownership accordingly.

The division was declared final and items not already in possession were ordered transferred forthwith.

In a will challenge involving a modest estate, the court considered procedural directions and a request for a summary judgment hearing.

The applicants sought to set aside the will alleging lack of testamentary capacity, lack of understanding, and undue influence, and also alleged that joint bank accounts were held on resulting trust for the estate.

The respondent requested a summary judgment motion to dispose of the case.

The court held that summary judgment would be a grossly disproportionate procedure given the modest estate and the presence of significant credibility disputes requiring viva voce evidence.

The court instead limited discovery and directed that the dispute proceed to a short hybrid trial.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed their request for an extension of time to file a Request for Review.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which constituted a denial of procedural fairness and an error of law.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to a different Member for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed an order that imputed his income at $65,000, rescinded child support, and transferred a child's education fund to the respondent.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge erred in finding the appellant in default of financial disclosure obligations, as the order lacked a specific time limit and the hearing date had been advanced.

The court also found no basis for imputing the appellant's income at $65,000, noting that his actual income was $28,400 while the respondent's was $64,300.

The court allowed the appeal, recalculated child support based on the parties' actual incomes, and set aside the transfer of the education fund on the condition that the appellant maintain it for the child's benefit.