Tracey J. Nieckarz

The mother brought a motion seeking a declaration that the father was acting contrary to a divorce order regarding their child's hockey team.

The motion was dismissed because the child's skill level and the hockey association's rules made strict compliance with the order contrary to the child's best interests.

The father subsequently sought costs on a partial recovery basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the mother's unreasonable settlement offer and the father's success.

The court awarded the father costs fixed at $5,015.93 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a six-year marriage.

The husband sought a declaration of resulting trust over three properties registered solely in the wife's name, as well as funds in a joint bank account.

The court found that the presumption of resulting trust was not rebutted for the properties, granting the husband a beneficial half-interest in each.

The court also found the joint bank account funds were jointly owned.

The court resolved disputes over the valuation of the husband's business shares at the date of marriage, preferring the wife's expert valuator, and determined the value of various disputed chattels, including tools and an engagement ring.

The husband's claim for an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act was dismissed.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment to the husband.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion in a family law proceeding seeking determinations relating to custody, access, child support, equalization, and distribution of matrimonial home proceeds following separation.

The court severed the divorce claim from the corollary relief and proceeded with summary judgment under the Family Law Rules.

Custody of the children was granted to the applicant based on the best interests of the children and the parties’ poor relationship, which undermined the feasibility of joint custody.

The respondent was granted supervised access for three months followed by unsupervised access similar to the pre‑existing arrangement.

Ongoing child support was ordered based on the respondent’s income along with retroactive child support, equalization adjustments, and distribution of sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.

On a motion for temporary custody in a high-conflict matrimonial dispute, each parent sought sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and related relief.

The court considered extensive affidavit evidence concerning caregiving history, allegations of domestic violence, and the parties’ respective ability to support the children’s relationship with the other parent.

Applying the best interests test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, the court found that both parents had historically participated in caregiving but expressed concern that the mother’s hostility toward the father risked undermining the children’s relationship with him.

On an interim basis, the father was granted custody and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, with the mother receiving regular parenting time.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer was requested to conduct a social work investigation for purposes of the eventual trial.

The respondent brought a motion for contempt alleging that the applicant wrongfully denied Christmas access to their child in December 2011.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

The respondent, as the successful party, sought costs.

The court awarded costs of $1,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 90 days.

The court considered the respondent's earlier unreasonable conduct in denying access, the applicant's reasonable decision to bring the motion, and the respondent's subsequent reasonable conduct in presenting a comprehensive offer to settle.

No costs were awarded for the period prior to the offer to settle.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt of a prior custody order, alleging that the respondent failed to communicate effectively regarding issues affecting their child and denied Christmas access in 2011.

The respondent argued that the applicant failed to provide proper notice of his intention to exercise access, specifically failing to include contact information within the required 45-day notice period.

The court found that while the respondent's conduct was problematic and appeared designed to frustrate the applicant's access rights, on a strict reading of the order, the respondent was technically within her rights to deny access due to the late provision of contact information.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside an order granted under s. 38(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which authorized a creditor to pursue a fraudulent conveyance action in the trustee's stead.

The appellants argued the creditor lacked standing because it had settled its claims against the bankrupt.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants had standing to challenge the s. 38 order due to allegations of abuse of process.

However, the Court found the creditor was a valid creditor at the date of bankruptcy and no binding settlement had been concluded with the bankrupt estate.

The appeal was allowed in part only to set aside a costs provision and stay the trustee's original motion, but otherwise dismissed.