Purchase This Domain

Family — Conjugal relationships — Business partnerships — Joint family venture — Unjust enrichment — Parties in a conjugal and business relationship disputed property entitlements after separation — Did the trial judge err in finding that the appellant was unjustly enriched by the respondent’s contributions? — Framework for unjust enrichment claims in family law disputesObligations — Unjust enrichment — Juristic reason — Contributions to property value — Appellant argued that section 22(3)(b) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act provided a juristic reason for enrichment — Does corporate law override equitable principles in family law disputes? — Statutory provisions must yield to equitable considerations in family law contextsObligations — Proprietary remedies — Monetary awards — Value survived basis — Trial judge granted a proprietary remedy instead of a monetary award for unjust enrichment — Did the trial judge err in granting a proprietary remedy? — Courts may grant proprietary remedies where monetary awards fail to reflect contributions and future entitlementsObligations — Property valuation — Market forces — Contributions to property improvement — Appellant argued that increased property value was due to market forces rather than respondent’s efforts — Should the trial judge have parsed the increased value to distinguish between market forces and contributions? — Property value is a holistic measurement; parsing not requiredProperty — Vesting orders — Equitable remedies — Transfer of shares — Respondent requested a vesting order transferring appellant’s shares in 1961160 Ontario Inc. — Was the issuance of a vesting order appropriate? — Vesting orders are discretionary remedies designed to enforce equitable entitlements

Family — Child support — Material change in circumstances — Motion judge found respondent’s parenting time exceeded 40% since 2017, constituting a material change in circumstances — Did the motion judge err in finding a material change in circumstances sufficient to vary the 2015 child support orders? — Governing principles from Michel v. Graydon applied to determine material change in circumstancesFamily — Parenting time — Federal Child Support Guidelines — Respondent’s parenting time exceeded 40% threshold under s. 9 of the Guidelines — Motion judge preferred respondent’s evidence based on specific overnight counts and actual parenting time — Did the motion judge err in finding that the respondent’s parenting time met the 40% threshold? — Contino v. Leonelli-Contino framework applied to assess parenting timeFamily — Retroactive child support — Quantum determination — Motion judge set January 1, 2018, as start date for retroactive child support, favoring appellant — Did the motion judge err in determining the quantum of retroactive child support? — Discretionary principles from Contino v. Leonelli-Contino applied, considering parties’ incomes, childcare expenses, and children’s needs

Criminal procedure — Appeals — Bifurcation of conviction and sentence appeals — Appellant sought to separate conviction and sentence appeals, citing efficiency and interests of justice — Should the conviction and sentence appeals be bifurcated? — Appeals should only be bifurcated where compelling reasons exist — R. v. M.W., 2015 ONCA 644 appliedCivil procedure — Case management — Procedural history — Appellant’s procedural delays and changes in representation contributed to inefficiency — Are there compelling reasons to justify bifurcation of conviction and sentence appeals? — Procedural inefficiency and overlap in issues weigh against bifurcationStatutory interpretation — Dangerous offender designation — Indeterminate sentence — Whether the dangerous offender designation requires the panel hearing the sentence appeal to review the trial record — Predicate offences relevant to dangerous offender designation — R. v. D.L., 2024 ONCA 908 appliedEvidence — Overlap in trial record — Dangerous offender designation and conviction appeal — Does the sentence appeal require review of the trial record? — Overlap in issues between conviction and sentence appeals necessitates joint hearing to avoid duplication