Brigitte Barsalou

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage.

The applicant's father had established a highly successful business.

Before the marriage, the father settled a trust holding shares in the business for the applicant.

During the marriage, the applicant received the shares and later participated in an estate freeze, transferring the shares to a holding company in exchange for preferred shares, while a new trust (the NFT) acquired the common shares.

The applicant and her children were discretionary beneficiaries of the NFT.

The main issue was whether the applicant's interest in the NFT was property subject to equalization, and if so, whether it was excluded as a gift.

The court found the interest was property, but bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Shinder v. Shinder, held it was an excluded gift.

The court also determined the valuation of various assets, dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim to a cottage, and ordered the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $1.18M and needs-based spousal support of $25,649 per month.

The applicant sought a divorce and judgment in accordance with a marriage contract signed in 1991.

The respondent husband sought to set aside the marriage contract, claiming inadequate financial disclosure, lack of understanding, duress, and unconscionability, or alternatively, rectification of a unilateral mistake regarding his entitlement to the matrimonial home's increased value.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding he was aware of the applicant's assets, received independent legal advice, and faced no duress or exploitation.

The marriage contract was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay $85,000 in costs.

The applicant father and respondent mother disagreed on whether their six-year-old child should return to in-person learning or continue online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the risks of exposure to COVID-19, the lack of underlying health conditions for the child, the child's social development needs, and the safety measures implemented by the school.

The court concluded that the benefits of in-person learning outweighed the risks and ordered the child to return to school in person.

No costs were awarded due to the novelty of the issue.