B. Thomas Granger

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 respondent husband brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the applicant wife's application to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife argued that her poor health, reliance on a disability pension, and need for home repairs constituted an unanticipated change in circumstances.

Applying the two-stage test from Miglin, the court found that the agreement was negotiated with competent counsel and that the wife's change in circumstances did not represent a significant departure from what could have been reasonably anticipated.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the application to set aside the agreement was dismissed.

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.

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.

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.