William Alexander Melnychuk

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the appeal at an all-inclusive amount of $10,000, payable by the appellant from their share of the estate to the respondent.

This appeal concerned an acrimonious estate dispute between two sisters regarding their deceased mother's modest estate.

The primary issue was an allegation that a joint tenancy in the matrimonial home had been severed by a testamentary disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no error in dismissing an adjournment motion, appointing one sister as the sole executrix, and ruling that the joint tenancy was not severed by a testamentary disposition alone.

The court emphasized the importance of expeditious and proportionate resolution of estate matters.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for an interim order to change the child's care and custody pending a status review application.

The child had been placed with the paternal grandparents under a final order.

The Society sought to return the child to the mother under supervision.

The court found that the mother was not yet ready for unsupervised care and that the grandparents and mother had recently agreed to a comprehensive joint parenting plan through mediation.

The court held that the child's best interests did not require a temporary change in placement and dismissed the motion.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of a 2018 access order after he was denied access to the children since December 2019.

The court found that while the preponderance of the evidence suggested the mother's recent attempt to facilitate access was a sham, it did not meet the criminal standard of proof required for contempt.

The motion was dismissed, but no costs were awarded due to the mother's unreasonable conduct.

The respondent moved to set aside an order made after an uncontested trial where he had been noted in default.

The court found two reasons to set aside the order: the respondent likely did not receive a letter about the uncontested hearing due to an incorrect address, and the applicant's affidavit for the uncontested trial contained inaccurate information about the respondent's address.

Additionally, the court emphasized the undesirability of making child custody decisions without both parents' participation.

The court set aside the previous order and restraining order, and issued temporary orders regarding child residence, communication, and travel restrictions, inviting the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to participate.