The appellant appealed an order interpreting the term 'legal custody' in a trust agreement between former common law spouses.
The motion judge had interpreted the phrase in accordance with s. 20 of the Children's Law Reform Act.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to construe the words in the context of the whole agreement to give effect to the parties' intent.
The Court held that the self-represented parties intended 'legal custody' to mean custody pursuant to a court order, and ordered the sum of $104,620.80 paid to the appellant.
