Anita T. Kain

In a supplementary judgment following a family law trial, the court addressed two outstanding property equalization issues that were not decided in the main judgment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $6,946.41 to the applicant for her share of the net proceeds from the sale of a condominium.

The court deferred the issue of a $53,764.73 RRSP spousal rollover, directing the parties to address it during oral submissions on costs.

The court also appended a list of typographical corrections to the main judgment.

The parties separated after a 10.5-year relationship.

The respondent, a high-earning cardiac surgeon, continued to deposit his income into a joint account managed by the applicant for seven years post-separation.

In 2008, the parties signed a separation agreement providing the applicant with $29,000 per month in indefinite spousal support.

The respondent sought to set aside the agreement and claim damages for breach of fiduciary duty regarding the applicant's use of the joint funds.

The court dismissed the fiduciary duty claim, finding no such duty existed between the spouses in these circumstances.

While the court upheld the separation agreement as valid under the Family Law Act, it applied the Miglin framework to override the spousal support provisions under the Divorce Act.

The court found the support quantum was based on significant tax defalcation and far exceeded the applicant's entitlement.

Spousal support was terminated after a short transition period.

In post‑separation family litigation, the respondent husband brought a cross‑motion seeking enforcement of a settlement reached shortly before a scheduled contempt motion concerning compliance with an earlier court order arising from mediation/arbitration minutes of settlement.

The settlement addressed several financial issues but did not expressly mention a requirement in the prior order that the husband transfer an interest in foreign real property to the wife.

The court found the offer had been made under a unilateral mistake by the wife, who reasonably believed the property transfer would proceed independently of the settlement.

Given circumstances indicating the husband or his counsel should have recognized the misunderstanding, the court held equitable principles justified rescission and declined to enforce the settlement.

The cross‑motion was dismissed and the underlying contempt motion was adjourned.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support, which the respondent eventually settled by accepting an offer.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith by deliberately failing to make timely financial disclosure, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $32,223.69, representing partial recovery up to the date of her offer to settle and full recovery thereafter.