Veena Pohani

The applicant and respondent lived in a common law relationship for 24 years.

The respondent was the sole legal owner of the family residence.

Upon separation, the applicant sought a 50% beneficial interest in the home and occupation rent.

The court found a joint family venture existed, entitling the applicant to a 50% constructive trust interest based on the current value of the home.

The claim for occupation rent was dismissed as the applicant left voluntarily and had access to the home post-separation.

The mother appealed a trial judge's decision denying her request to relocate the child's primary residence and ordering that the child reside primarily with the father.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge made material errors, including relying on a witness who did not testify and failing to consider the mother's evidence that she would remain in her current city if the relocation was denied.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing, with the child to remain with the father on an interim basis pending the new hearing.

In a contested divorce trial, the court determined parenting arrangements, equalization of net family property, and spousal and child support.

The parties shared joint custody of their child on a week-about schedule but disputed travel protocols, passport control, income for support purposes, and the valuation of several assets.

The respondent claimed large family loans evidenced by promissory notes to reduce his net family property; the court rejected the claim, finding the evidence unreliable and concluding the alleged debts were not proven.

The court determined the respondent’s income for support purposes exceeded his declared income and ordered ongoing spousal support and set-off child support.

The respondent was also ordered to pay a substantial equalization payment and maintain life insurance securing his support obligations.

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage marked by domestic violence.

The applicant wife sought an unequal division of net family property, arguing the respondent husband forced her to sign a joint line of credit and recklessly depleted the funds both before and after separation.

The court found the husband's conduct unconscionable and granted an unequal division, ordering that the wife receive half the proceeds of the matrimonial home without deduction for the line of credit debt.

The court also addressed occupation rent, setting it off against the husband's mortgage payments, and ordered the husband's lawyer to return trust funds improperly disbursed to the husband.