T. Maddalena

The applicant mother and respondent father sought a determination on custody, access, child support, and section 7 expenses for their four-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found that despite past conflict, both parents were loving and the child was thriving in their care.

The court ordered joint custody with a detailed access schedule, imputed an income of $30,000 to the father for child support purposes, and ordered the parents to equally share section 7 expenses including Montessori school tuition.

In a family law trial, the applicant sought equalization of net family property and retroactive support, alleging the respondent hid substantial assets.

The court admitted emails obtained by the applicant using a shared password, which revealed an elaborate scheme by the respondent to transfer over $400,000 out of the country to avoid his financial obligations.

The court rejected the respondent's claim that the funds belonged to wealthy friends, finding his evidence completely lacking in credibility.

The court calculated the equalization payment at $268,683, excluding the respondent's debts due to his bankruptcy, and awarded retroactive support.

Due to the respondent's bad faith and deliberate attempts to deceive the court, he was ordered to pay $15,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for $95,576.53 based on a personal indemnity agreement executed during the sale of a cosmetic clinic.

The defendant argued the indemnity was unenforceable because the underlying equipment leases were never formally assigned.

The court found the defendant waived the assignment requirement by completing the transaction and using the equipment for two years.

Summary judgment was granted, and the defendant's request for a stay pending her counterclaims was denied.

Following a family law trial where the main issue was the valuation and equalization of a physiotherapy business, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had made an offer to settle that was very close to the final trial judgment of $145,448.57.

The court found the applicant was the substantially successful party.

After deducting an amount to reflect issues settled by minutes of settlement at the start of trial, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $43,880.86.

The parties separated and sought equalization of net family property, primarily disputing the valuation of their jointly owned physiotherapy clinic partnership.

The applicant presented an expert business valuation, while the respondent disputed the valuation but did not provide her own expert report.

The court averaged the expert's valuation and the respondent's proposed valuation to determine the partnership's value.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant for his half of the partnership rather than ordering its sale, and resolved several minor financial adjustments between the parties.

The applicants and respondents are neighbours involved in a dispute over a right of way owned by the respondents but used by the applicants to access their properties.

The applicants sought the removal of decorative rocks and fern trees placed on the right of way by the respondents, arguing they impeded access.

The court found that the rocks substantially interfered with the applicants' ability to exit their driveway and ordered their removal.

However, the court found the trees did not impede reasonable access and allowed them to remain.

The court also declared that the respondents are responsible for maintaining and clearing snow from the right of way at their own cost, but the applicants may do so if the respondents fail to fulfill this duty.

The applicant children's aid society sought a finding that four children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access for the purposes of adoption.

The children had been apprehended due to severe neglect, hazardous living conditions, and exposure to domestic violence.

The respondent mother, who suffered from untreated complex post-traumatic stress disorder, sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found the children in need of protection and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the mother's unresolved trauma prevented her from safely parenting the children and that access would not be beneficial and could impair adoption opportunities.