Warren S. Fullerton

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision granting a Writ of Possession and a stay of the Writ pending appeal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to grant the Writ rather than deferring to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court also granted a stay of the Writ pending appeal, on the condition that the moving party pay $2,000 per month as an occupancy payment and permit access to prospective purchasers.

The respondent payor brought an urgent motion to suspend ongoing spousal support pending the hearing of his motion to terminate support following his early retirement.

The applicant recipient opposed the motion, citing her inability to work due to medical conditions and the payor's historical failure to disclose significant income increases.

The court applied the four-part test for temporary variation of support, finding that while the payor demonstrated a prima facie case and potential hardship, his failure to disclose income and the recipient's precarious financial situation weighed against full suspension.

The court ordered a 50% reduction in spousal support on an interim, interim basis pending a full evidentiary hearing.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for parenting time after the parties separated and the respondent mother allegedly denied him access to their six-year-old child.

The court considered whether the matter met the definition of urgency under the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession regarding the COVID-19 pandemic court suspension.

The triage judge concluded the matter met the definition of urgency because it involved an allegation of wrongful retention of a child, and ordered the motion to proceed on the limited issue of access.

The respondent brought a motion for a determination of the appropriate quantum of temporary spousal support.

The court was tasked with determining the applicant's income for support purposes, considering personal expenses paid by the business and non-arm's length wages.

The court averaged expert calculations to arrive at an income of $634,733 for the applicant and ordered temporary spousal support of $20,000 per month, retroactive to December 1, 2017.

The decision emphasized "rough justice" for interim orders and the application of Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines despite the payor's income exceeding the ceiling.

The appellant wife appealed a motion judge's decision to enforce an accepted offer to settle an equalization payment for $35,000.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by enforcing the settlement despite the respondent husband's failure to provide updated financial disclosure for her proposed valuation date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in principle and correctly concluded the appellant had sufficient disclosure to appreciate the compromise she was making when she offered to settle.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim family court order requiring the parties’ child to return to Essex County pending a custody determination, and also sought a stay of that order.

The court considered the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the governing principles for interim mobility disputes, including the best interests of the child and the maximum contact principle.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish conflicting authority or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The motion judge’s decision was fact-driven and aimed at preserving meaningful relationships with both parents until a custody assessment could be completed.

Leave to appeal and the request for a stay were dismissed.

The grandmother sought costs against the Children's Aid Society following a temporary care and custody motion in a child protection proceeding.

The grandmother argued the Society acted unfairly by failing to investigate her as a potential caregiver despite her close relationship with the children and her offer to provide care.

The Society maintained it acted professionally and in good faith.

The court found that while the Society could have been more diligent in investigating the grandmother's plan, its conduct did not amount to unreasonable, unfair, or indefensible behaviour when viewed in context of the emergency circumstances and timeline of events.

The grandmother's request for costs was denied.

The parties separated, executed a separation agreement dividing their property, and later reconciled.

The trial judge found they reconciled in February 1998 and that the property division in the separation agreement survived the reconciliation, resulting in no equalization payment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the reconciliation date but found the trial judge erred in concluding the entire property division survived.

The Court held that while the specific transfer of the matrimonial home was intended to be final, the rest of the agreement was voided by the reconciliation.

The appeal was allowed, and an equalization payment was ordered based on a modified Net Family Property Statement.