Bradley Thomas Granger

The respondent brought a motion to change to terminate his spousal support obligations following his retirement.

The applicant opposed the termination, arguing support was intended for their joint lives, and sought a lump sum to cover her tax liabilities from failing to declare past support as income.

The court found the respondent's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances as explicitly contemplated in the original consent order.

Concluding that the applicant had sufficient time to achieve self-sufficiency and that her tax liabilities were her own responsibility, the court terminated spousal support retroactively to December 31, 2016, and dismissed the applicant's claims.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs following a successful trial for the applicant.

The applicant sought over $105,000 in total costs, while the respondent argued for a limit of $25,000, citing financial hardship and proportionality.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors and the principle of proportionality, awarded the applicant $40,000 for fees and $7,500 for disbursements plus HST, finding the applicant's requested amount excessive despite the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate and the applicant's success at trial.

Supplementary reasons establishing the timeline and procedure for the parties to make written submissions on costs following the release of the main judgment.

The parties separated after a 27-year marriage during which the applicant primarily raised their children and assisted in building the respondent's financial advising business.

The applicant, now disabled by fibromyalgia, sought spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court ordered spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive to the date of separation, finding the applicant's delay in seeking support was reasonably explained by her health and financial circumstances.

For equalization, the court accepted the applicant's expert valuation of the respondent's business, which included significant value for the goodwill in his book of business, and ordered an equalization payment of $278,316.85.

The applicant sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement signed prior to marriage that waived spousal support and equalization, and alternatively sought spousal support despite the agreement.

The court found the agreement was valid and binding, dismissing claims of duress, unconscionability, and material non-disclosure.

However, applying the Miglin framework, the court awarded the applicant a $250,000 lump sum in spousal support, finding that her unexpected severe health issues and resulting inability to work constituted a significant change in circumstances that made strict enforcement of the support waiver non-compliant with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

This family law application, initiated in 2010, proceeded to trial in 2017 to resolve outstanding issues of equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, s.7 child support expenses, and a lump sum spousal support claim.

The court made specific findings on asset valuations for equalization, resulting in an equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent.

Post-separation adjustments were also confirmed as owed by the applicant.

For child support, the respondent was ordered to contribute to specific extraordinary expenses, including music lessons, tutoring, art therapy, and certain uninsured prescription costs.

A lump sum spousal support of $12,000 was awarded to the applicant, credited against her payments to the respondent, recognizing her efforts to regain self-sufficiency after a significant back injury and surgery post-separation.

A divorce order was also granted.

The respondent father brought a motion to resume unsupervised access to his daughter after completing a six-month period of supervised access, which had been agreed upon following unfounded allegations of sexual abuse.

The applicant mother opposed the resumption of unsupervised access and attempted to introduce new evidence to relitigate the issue.

The court found that the respondent was generally successful on the motion and awarded him costs.

Applying the principles of costs under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $2,500 in costs.

The moving party failed to attend the family law trial, resulting in the dismissal of his spousal support claim and the trial proceeding in his absence.

Before final judgment was rendered, he retained counsel and brought a motion to reopen the trial.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment by analogy, finding that while the moving party's explanation for his absence was inadequate, his spousal support claim had significant merit given the length of the marriage and income disparity.

To ensure procedural fairness, the court set aside the dismissal of the spousal support claim and reopened the trial for that issue only, but declined to reopen the property and equalization issues.

This trial concerned the equalization of net family property following a marriage breakdown.

The central dispute revolved around the valuation and attribution of a Mexican vacation property, legally owned by a corporation in which the respondent held shares, but which the respondent argued the applicant had a beneficial interest in.

The court also addressed the valuation of various assets and liabilities, including pre-marriage assets and post-separation adjustments.

The court ultimately declined to impose a resulting trust on the Mexican property in favour of the applicant, attributing its full value to the respondent, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment to the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, which sought to set aside a land transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

The plaintiffs alleged the transfer was made to evade an unpaid judgment debt against Said Meddaoui.

The defendants argued Said Meddaoui's liability on the judgment was extinguished by his discharge from bankruptcy in 2000, and he acquired the land after his discharge.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that Said Meddaoui's discharge released him from the debt, and the plaintiffs' claims of an agreement to pay or non-disclosure of assets were not properly pleaded or supported by evidence.

This was an uncontested family law trial where the applicant sought divorce, spousal support, child support, equalization of net family property, freezing assets, costs, pre-judgment interest, and apportionment of a line of credit for university expenses.

The respondent failed to respond or appear.

The court granted a divorce decree but adjourned all other claims due to insufficient evidence regarding pension division and university expenses.

The court required further evidence, including a pension valuation by the administrator and detailed documentation for s. 7 expenses, and ordered the respondent to file a financial statement.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage during which the applicant worked as a bookkeeper for the respondent's construction business.

The court determined the value of the business at separation, rejecting the applicant's expert's inclusion of 'secured customer leads' as property under the Family Law Act.

The court also addressed retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support, imputing income to the respondent based on a three-year pattern and awarding the applicant high-range spousal support of $3,300 monthly due to strong compensatory and needs-based claims.

The parties separated in 2000 and have litigated child support and section 7 expenses extensively.

The respondent mother sought retroactive child support and section 7 expenses for the parties' two children dating back to 2002, including substantial post-secondary education costs.

The court found that the mother had incurred unreasonable expenses and failed to require the children to contribute to their own education.

The court imputed income to the mother due to underemployment and lifted the corporate veil to include the father's corporate retained earnings in his income, less a reasonable allowance for retirement savings.

The father was ordered to pay a calculated portion of the reasonable retroactive and ongoing expenses, resulting in divided success.

On the respondent's attempt to pursue equalization of net family property after his earlier pleading had been struck and that claim dismissed for repeated non-compliance with financial disclosure orders, the court held the renewed claim was barred as an abuse of process.

The court emphasized that dismissal orders must be respected unless successfully challenged and that a party cannot simply commence fresh proceedings to relitigate the same financial claim.

The moving party properly conceded there was no procedural impediment to the spousal support claim because it had not been advanced in the original pleading.

The equalization claim, any related set-off claim, and any equitable relief founded on equalization were summarily dismissed.

Following a successful second trial in an insurance coverage dispute concerning aircraft damage, the court addressed costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought increased pre‑judgment interest under s.130 of the Courts of Justice Act and substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10 based on an earlier offer to settle.

The court exercised its discretion to increase pre‑judgment interest to 1% due to changes in market rates and the lengthy litigation, fixing interest at $7,000.

However, the plaintiff was not entitled to substantial indemnity costs because the offer to settle equaled the eventual judgment and included substantial indemnity provisions that made the judgment less favourable than the offer.

Costs for the second trial were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity basis with a reduction for the use of two senior counsel.

The insured sought recovery under an aircraft insurance policy after a twin‑engine aircraft crashed during an attempted takeoff using only one functioning engine.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the occurrence was not an “accident” and alternatively that the insured breached a policy condition requiring protection of the aircraft from further loss.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence defining an accident as an “unlooked‑for mishap or occurrence,” the court held that negligent conduct may still constitute an accident unless the insured deliberately assumed a known risk.

Although the pilot’s decision to attempt a single‑engine takeoff was negligent and ill‑advised, the evidence did not establish recklessness or deliberate risk assumption sufficient to remove the occurrence from coverage.

The court also found no breach of the policy’s aircraft protection condition.

Judgment was granted for the insured.