Valois P. Ambrosino

This trial concerned the ownership of a jointly held house (Brookdale) and a joint investment account following the separation of the applicant, Victoria Chechui, and the respondent, Ian Jamieson Nieman.

Victoria claimed 50% ownership in both, while Ian argued Victoria held her interests in trust for him, or alternatively, made an unjust enrichment claim.

Ian also sought damages for breach of trust, fiduciary duty, or contract.

The court found for Victoria regarding the Brookdale property, determining it was a joint gift and jointly owned.

However, the court found for Ian regarding the joint investment account, concluding that Victoria held her interest in trust for Ian, as his intention was only to grant a right of survivorship, not an immediate gift of half the funds.

All of Ian's damage claims were dismissed due to lack of proof and absence of a fiduciary relationship or contract.

The applicant child was successful on a motion for interim relief against the respondent father, obtaining a declaration of parentage, child support, and interim disbursements.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the issues were novel or of public interest.

Finding the respondent's behaviour unreasonable and that the applicant beat her offer to settle, the court awarded costs of $32,523.72.

Following the disposition of two family law motions where the applicant was substantially successful, the court considered written costs submissions.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success and the applicant's alleged unwillingness to mediate.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the applicant was the successful party and the respondent's conduct in bringing his motion was unreasonable.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $18,000.

The applicant sought temporary child support and contribution to section 7 expenses, while the respondent sought parenting-related relief including a 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the respondent, who reported no current income while serving as CEO of a biotechnology company without salary.

Applying s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined that despite the absence of reported income, the respondent maintained a high standard of living and income should therefore be imputed based on his expenses.

Income was imputed at $123,000 annually and guideline child support was ordered accordingly.

The court declined to order contribution to section 7 expenses due to insufficient evidence and maintained the existing parenting schedule pending further discussion at a settlement conference.

In a family law proceeding involving equalization and support issues, the responding spouse sought an advance on the equalization payment or interim disbursements for legal and expert fees.

The parties had previously consented to an order requiring disclosure, retaining a joint income analysis expert, and permitting the respondent to encumber the matrimonial home for certain legal and accounting costs.

The court reviewed the existing consent order and a subsequent disclosure order and concluded that the issues of interim disbursements and advances had already been adequately addressed.

No additional relief was granted, and the matter was left to proceed with completion of expert reports and continued case management.

Following multiple attendances in a family law proceeding concerning support and property division after a long marriage, the court addressed costs arising from motions primarily related to financial disclosure.

The applicant spouse had brought motions seeking disclosure, spousal support, and advances on equalization, arguing that the respondent had delayed providing necessary financial information, including business valuations and income analysis relating to corporate interests.

The court found the respondent had failed to provide timely and adequate disclosure, causing unnecessary delay and requiring the applicant to bring motions to compel compliance.

Although the applicant did not obtain the exact relief requested in earlier motions, the court concluded the motions were necessary and that the applicant was more successful overall.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the applicant payable forthwith.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking an increase in child support under an existing divorce order.

The respondent opposed the increase and brought a cross‑motion seeking termination of a nominal $1 per year spousal support order.

The court found the respondent’s guideline income to be approximately $191,500 after adjusting professional expense deductions and concluded the guideline table amount was less than the $2,600 monthly support already being paid.

The court ordered no change to the existing child support but directed that verified section 7 expenses be shared proportionately based on the parties’ respective incomes.

The respondent’s request to terminate the nominal spousal support order was also refused due to insufficient evidentiary basis.