Brian Ibrahim Cintosun

This case involved the breakdown of a short marriage and an application for divorce and equalization of net family properties.

The applicant husband sought an equalization payment, while the respondent wife disputed the amount and requested an unequal division, alleging the marriage was for immigration purposes.

The court calculated the equalization payment owed by the wife to the husband as $3,660.57.

The court denied the wife's request for an unequal division, finding that the "unconscionability" threshold under the Family Law Act was not met, and the payment was not "disproportionately large" given the brief 17-month cohabitation period.

Credibility findings favored the respondent wife regarding asset valuations.

The plaintiffs sought payment of $54,500 plus interest, representing the unpaid balance of a $100,000 purchase price for a pizza business.

The defendants argued there was no binding contract or, alternatively, that the plaintiffs breached its terms.

The court found a binding contract existed as of July 31, 2012, for the purchase of the business, including equipment and the assignment of a lease, contingent on the plaintiffs fulfilling certain conditions.

However, the plaintiffs failed to take necessary steps to assign the lease and transfer corporate shares, and allowed the lease to fall into default, leading to its termination.

This made it impossible for the plaintiffs to complete their end of the bargain.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed against all defendants, with costs awarded to the defendants.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision reinstating a default judgment and garnishment proceedings.

The parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement requiring the appellant to pay $4,000, with a default clause allowing for a $15,000 judgment if payments were missed.

The appellant stopped payment on the settlement cheques, triggering the default clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the lower court's factual findings and holding that the default clause was not unconscionable given that both parties were represented by counsel when the settlement was reached.