Anthony Burke Doran

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment interpreting the spousal support provisions of a marriage contract.

The contract required spousal support to be varied annually based on the greater of the proportional change in the husband's employment income or his total income from all sources.

The trial judge interpreted this to mean the greater proportional change, whether positive or negative, which could result in the wife receiving no support if the husband ceased employment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the variation provision must be interpreted in the context of the entire contract and the parties' intentions, meaning the variation should provide the wife with the greater amount of support.

The appeal regarding the minimum support provision was dismissed.

The mother obtained a full-time teaching job in Cornwall and sought to relocate the three children from Ottawa.

The application judge granted the move.

The father appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge failed to conduct a full and sensitive inquiry into the best interests of the children, misapprehended the joint custody arrangement, and ignored an independent psychological assessment.

A new hearing was ordered.

The appellants appealed and the respondent cross-appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family properties.

The issues on appeal included the valuation of a property known as Block 108, the trial judge's finding of undisclosed assets, the deduction of notional income tax on the deemed disposition of shares, and the beneficial ownership of various properties.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact, assessments of credibility, or exercise of discretion.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement on costs following an appeal.

The court ordered no costs for the motion before Carthy J.A., but awarded the respondents their costs of the appeal fixed at $26,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her solicitor negligence claim against her former family law lawyer.

She alleged the lawyer negligently consented to a non-depletion order, preventing her from selling the matrimonial home at the peak of the real estate market.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the lawyer did not consent to the order, the order could have been varied if a sale was desired, and the appellant did not actually intend to sell the home at that time.

Appeal from a solicitor's negligence judgment arising out of two insurance litigation files handled for an insurer.

In the Little matter, the court upheld the finding that counsel negligently failed to alert the insurer to a coverage issue revealed on discovery and that, but for that failure, the insurer would likely have denied errors and omissions coverage based on material non-disclosure in the insurance application.

In the Uniroyal matter, the court held that the trial judge erred in interpreting pollution exclusion wording as clearly excluding groundwater contamination under a 1987 umbrella policy, with the result that the insurer still had a duty to defend and suffered no compensable loss from counsel's conduct.

The appeal was therefore dismissed in part and allowed in part, with a later addendum awarding the appellant trial costs of the Uniroyal matter.

Appeal from an order varying a pre-Guidelines child support order to the table amount under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court held it was bound by prior Ontario authority requiring the party seeking variation to establish a material change in circumstances beyond the mere coming into force of the Guidelines, but strongly questioned that authority and recommended reconsideration.

The court also held that, following the Supreme Court’s decision on s. 4(b), a high-income payor must have the opportunity to show that the table amount is inappropriate.

Fresh evidence was refused, the variation order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant husband appealed an order granting the respondent wife exclusive lifetime possession of the matrimonial home under the Family Law Reform Act, arguing it was invalid or inoperative due to paramountcy when joined with a maintenance order under the Divorce Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an order for exclusive possession is not a support order, and the provisions of the two statutes are not mutually exclusive.

The Court found no conflict between the federal and provincial legislation, as they confer independent jurisdictions in relation to different subject matters that complement each other.