Avra Rosen

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding custody, divorce, property claims, and spousal support.

The parties delivered a joint factum consenting to a new trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all issues, finding that the trial judge failed to properly address the best interests of the child, did not give reasons for refusing the divorce claim, and failed to deal with property and spousal support claims.

The appellant husband appealed a divorce judgment ordering him to pay an equalization payment of over $7 million and $35,000 monthly in spousal support.

He challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the ownership of the matrimonial home, the quantum of spousal support, unconscionability under the Family Law Act, and the disbursement of funds held in court.

He also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the motion, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal conclusions, and noting the fresh evidence could have been discovered with due diligence.

The husband sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from an arbitration award that had been incorporated into a Superior Court judgment.

The agreement to arbitrate purported to allow an appeal directly to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the court by agreement, and that under the Arbitration Act, 1991, appeals must first go to the Superior Court.

However, given the procedural confusion surrounding the appeal route, the court granted the husband an extension of time to appeal the earlier Superior Court order that had quashed his initial appeal.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment that ordered joint custody and unsupervised access to the respondent father.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made several material errors, including excluding evidence predating a prior consent order, ordering joint custody despite finding a change in custody would traumatize the children and the parents could not communicate, and ignoring the evidence of the court-appointed therapist who recommended no access for two years.

The appeal was allowed, the custody and access orders were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant husband was ordered to discharge the mortgage on the matrimonial home and arrange substitute security for a joint line of credit.

He failed to comply, defaulted on payments, and made a voluntary assignment in bankruptcy.

The motions judge found him in contempt and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued that compliance would constitute an unlawful preference under bankruptcy legislation and that the order was for the payment of money, precluding a contempt finding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's late invocation of bankruptcy was an impermissible collateral attack on a valid court order, and that the order did not require the payment of money.

The six-month sentence was upheld due to the appellant's continuous and cavalier non-compliance.

The appellant husband sought a stay of enforcement of a warrant of committal for contempt pending his appeal.

He had been found in contempt for failing to remove a mortgage and a joint line of credit from the matrimonial home as ordered in a family law judgment, and was sentenced to six months in jail.

The husband argued he was insolvent and could not legally comply with the order without creating a fraudulent preference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious question to be tried regarding the contempt finding, but expedited the appeal to address the length of the incarceration period.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment setting aside a separation agreement and determining net family property.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusions that the respondent lacked capacity to sign the agreement, that its terms were unconscionable, and that it was signed under duress.

The court also upheld the trial judge's valuation of net family property.

The appeal was dismissed.

On cross-appeal, the court upheld the denial of pre-judgment interest but allowed the cross-appeal regarding costs, awarding the respondent her costs at trial on a party and party basis because she recovered a judgment in excess of her offer.