William Anthony Sangster

The parties separated in 2001 due to the respondent's alcoholism but maintained contact and engaged in numerous activities together between 2003 and 2009.

The applicant sought a valuation date of February 26, 2009, while the respondent argued for June 1, 2001.

The court applied the Molodowich factors and found that the parties had resumed cohabitation between 2003 and 2009, despite maintaining separate residences.

The court determined the valuation date for equalization of net family property to be February 26, 2009, as there was no reasonable prospect of the resumption of cohabitation after that date.

The respondent in a family property dispute brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim on the basis that it was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The moving party argued the claim was commenced outside the limitation period.

The responding party contended that either the ten‑year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied, that no limitation period applied to the equitable claim, or that the issue required a trial.

The court held that the summary judgment motion could not be determined on the existing record because the application had not yet been formally amended to plead unjust enrichment and the responding party had not pleaded the limitation defence.

The motion was therefore dismissed and no costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a trial decision concerning custody and principal residence of a child following the mother's relocation from North Bay to the Hanover area.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in failing to consider the possibility that she would return to North Bay if ordered by the court.

The appeal judge held there was no evidence before the trial judge that the appellant intended to return, and therefore the trial judge was entitled to treat the relocation as a material change in circumstances requiring reconsideration of custody.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the trial judge’s findings—favouring stability and the father’s parenting—were entitled to deference.

Fresh evidence tendered on appeal was rejected as insufficient to affect the outcome.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a seven-year-old child found to be in need of protection.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown Wardship without access, supported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The mother sought return of the child to her care; the father supported that position and sought access.

The court found that the mother had a long history of mental health issues, emotional instability, substance abuse, and had emotionally abused and neglected the child.

The child had thrived in foster care with relatives and experienced significant anxiety during supervised access with the mother.

The court determined that return to the mother's care was not in the child's best interests and ordered Crown Wardship without access to either parent.