Valerie L. Brown

The applicant mother sought spousal support, while the respondent father sought a final order for joint custody, increased parenting time, and specific Christmas access.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 per year to the mother for spousal support calculations due to insufficient evidence regarding her educational pursuits, awarding mid-range spousal support of $1,200 per month and child support of $911 per month, subject to a one-year review.

The father's request for equal parenting time and Christmas access was granted, and a final order for joint custody was issued by consent.

Costs were awarded to the respondent father.

The applicant, Patricia Anne Virc, brought a motion seeking to stay the respondent, Michael F. Blair's, Motion to Change an earlier spousal support order and requested security for costs.

The security for costs issue was resolved by agreement, with a certificate of pending litigation to be registered against the respondent's property.

The primary issue addressed was the appropriate jurisdiction for the Motion to Change, given the respondent's inconsistent residency claims and a history of problematic litigation conduct.

The court found the balance of convenience favored the applicant, who resided in Toronto, over the respondent, whose residency in Collingwood was questioned.

The court stayed the respondent's Motion to Change issued in Barrie, allowing him to re-file it in Toronto.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

This ruling addresses costs following a four-day trial in a family law matter.

The mother sought costs and pre-judgment interest, while the father claimed to be the more successful party.

The court found the mother was overall more successful, particularly on child support income and property issues.

The father's conduct was deemed unreasonable, including lack of credibility, failure to provide disclosure, dishonest reporting, and disobeying a court order.

Applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, the court awarded the mother $30,000 in fees and $2,000 in disbursements.

Pre-judgment interest of $2,500 was also awarded, considering the father's unreasonable conduct and retention of properties.

The final award was $34,500 plus HST, with a portion enforceable as a support order.

The parties separated after a long relationship.

The main issues involved the ownership and equalization of a property at 335 Penn Avenue, which the respondent purchased with inherited funds but later transferred into joint tenancy.

The court found that the respondent rebutted the presumption of joint ownership and held the property by way of a resulting trust.

However, because the property was a matrimonial home on the date of separation, its value was included in the equalization calculation.

The court ordered the applicant to pay occupation rent for his post-separation use of the home and to contribute to their child's post-secondary education expenses.

After setting off these amounts against the equalization payment, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $63,696.

The unmarried parties, who cohabited and had two children, disputed the division of family realty and other issues after agreeing on custody and spousal support.

The court applied the joint family venture concept from Kerr v. Baranow to assess contributions to accumulated wealth, primarily two properties registered in the applicant father's name.

The court found the father's credibility lacking regarding financial contributions and income reporting.

A monetary award was deemed appropriate, with the mother receiving a 35% share of the net equity, adjusted for advances and a promissory note.

The court also determined child support arrears, ongoing child support, special expenses, and specific parenting schedule details for holidays and transfers.

Appeal from a family law summary judgment dismissing an application to set aside a separation agreement based on alleged material misrepresentation of date-of-marriage business assets affecting equalization.

The court held that, once deliberate material misrepresentation was assumed, the motion judge erred by shifting the onus to the recipient spouse to investigate the veracity of the disclosure; the burden remained on the disclosing spouse to prove actual knowledge of the falsehood.

The record contained genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the extent and deliberateness of the non-disclosure, the recipient spouse's actual knowledge, and related claims concerning spousal support, undue influence, duress and unconscionability.

The only issue finally resolved against the appellant was the claim that the agreement was unenforceable for lack of proper witnessing under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking termination of child support for an adult child, adjustment of child support for the remaining child, retroactive recalculation of section 7 child care expenses, and termination or reduction of spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the parties’ income changes and the eldest child ceasing to be dependent.

Spousal support was not terminated due to the length of the marriage and the continuing caregiving responsibilities of the recipient, but the court found that under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines the appropriate amount would be mid‑range support resulting in little or no ongoing entitlement.

Child support for the adult child was terminated effective June 30, 2011 and ongoing support for the younger child was recalculated.

The court ordered recalculation of retroactive amounts and proportionate sharing of uninsured dental expenses.