4 total
Request to include language regarding the return of shares in a draft order denied.
The parties attended a case conference to settle the form of an order arising from a previous decision by a retired judge.
The respondents sought to include language requiring the return of shares, which the applicant opposed.
The court found that the previous judge made no determination regarding the return of shares, as the issue was not before the court during the prior hearing.
The court declined to include the respondents' proposed language and settled the order in the form submitted by the applicant.
The court declined to include language regarding the return of shares in a final order, finding the issue was not previously litigated.
This case conference addressed a dispute over the final form of an order previously issued by a retired judge.
The respondents sought to include language regarding the return of shares, which the applicant contended was never an issue before the court.
The court, interpreting the original order and the scope of the prior hearing, determined that the retired judge had made no finding or determination on the return of shares.
Consequently, the court declined to include the proposed language, settling the order in the form submitted by the applicant.
Appeal allowed; purchase agreement provided sufficient notice of registered utility easement.
The appellants appealed a decision granting the respondent's application for the return of a deposit after she terminated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property due to a registered easement.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding that the purchase agreement did not provide sufficient notice of the easement.
The agreement specifically referenced the easement in the legal description and the respondent failed to establish that the easement did not fall within the exception for minor utility easements.
The matter was returned to the application judge to determine damages.
Father granted sole decision-making and primary residence; mother's spousal support offset by child support arrears.
This trial addressed parenting, child support, and spousal support.
The father sought sole decision-making and primary residence, while the mother sought shared parenting and support.
The court found the father more credible and granted him sole decision-making and primary residence, establishing a detailed parenting schedule for the mother.
Child support was ordered from the mother to the father, with arrears offset.
The mother was found to have a modest entitlement to spousal support, which was also fully offset by child support arrears.
The decision emphasized the child's best interests, parental cooperation, and the father's stable care.
