William Humphrey

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a separation agreement reached via email correspondence.

The responding party argued that the moving party had repudiated the agreement by changing counsel and failing to sign a formal settlement agreement before the offer's expiry.

The court found no evidence of repudiation, noting that the moving party's retention of new counsel to review the agreement did not constitute resiling from it.

The court concluded that a binding agreement had been reached and granted the motion, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the moving party.

The applicant sought to restrict the respondent's in-person access to their two young daughters due to COVID-19 concerns, specifically because the respondent lived with his brother, a long-distance truck driver who made weekly runs to the United States.

The court considered the public health guidelines and the specific precautions taken by the brother.

Applying the principles from Ribeiro v. Wright, the court found that the children's interests in having in-person contact with the respondent should prevail, as the household was following public health guidelines and the risk was not significantly higher than other community members.

The motion to restrict access was dismissed, and a specific access schedule was ordered.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a ten-day family law trial where the wife was largely successful.

The court had previously found the husband responsible for misappropriating business funds and owing an equalization payment.

The wife sought substantial indemnity costs, while the husband also claimed costs.

The court dismissed the husband's claim for costs due to his lack of success at trial and the irrelevance of his settlement offers.

The wife was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, approaching full recovery, primarily due to her success and the husband's misconduct in misappropriating funds and frustrating her efforts to recover them, which necessitated calling numerous witnesses.

This trial addressed a dispute between separated spouses, equal shareholders in a landscaping business, concerning the husband's alleged misappropriation of funds and the equalization of net family property.

The court found the husband lacked credibility and had indeed skimmed cash payments from the business.

The husband was ordered to pay $76,275.00 to the corporation for misappropriated funds and $122,340.22 to the wife as an equalization payment, with the full value of the business attributed to him due to his effective takeover.

The wife's claim for punitive damages was dismissed, as the other orders and costs were deemed sufficient for denunciation and deterrence.

The parties separated and the mother relocated to Stoney Creek for employment, seeking to move the children to Milton.

Both parents brought motions for interim custody and primary residence.

The court applied the test for interim mobility, finding the mother failed to establish compelling reasons that moving the children from their established community, schools, and routines in Port Elgin was in their best interests.

The court ordered interim joint custody with the children's primary residence to be with the father in Port Elgin, and granted the mother liberal access.