Casey Vandeputte

Following the settlement of their family law proceeding, the applicant sought $340,000 in costs, arguing substantial success and unreasonable behaviour by the respondent regarding disclosure.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded given the compromises involved in the settlement.

The court reviewed the applicable legal principles for awarding costs after a settlement, noting that courts should be slow to award costs in such circumstances.

Finding that success was divided, neither party beat their offers to settle, and there was no bad faith, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The appellant father appealed an order denying his application for periodic or lump sum dependant support for his minor daughter from her deceased mother's estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The mother had left life insurance proceeds in a bare trust for the daughter.

The application judge found the father's budget included expenses not attributable to the child and ordered funds paid into court to be administered by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's consideration of the statutory factors, his assessment of the evidence, or his decision to utilize the Minor's Fund Program to manage the support payments.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, sought a declaration of an equal interest in their shared home via constructive trust, and dependency support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court granted the constructive trust claim, finding the applicant made significant financial contributions to the home's purchase and upkeep, establishing unjust enrichment.

However, the court dismissed the dependency support claim, ruling it was barred by the six-month limitation period and that the property had already vested in the respondent under the Estates Administration Act.

The applicant purchaser and respondent vendor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a property intended for a townhouse development.

The agreement included a vendor take back mortgage with a clause reducing the principal amount if the number of approved units was less than the originally planned 18, subject to a $250,000 floor.

The development application faced opposition and the number of units was reduced.

The court was asked to interpret the mortgage terms.

The court found the reduction clause enforceable and not ambiguous, rejecting the vendor's argument that the entire mortgage amount was due if the original application failed.

The court held that the mortgage principal would be reduced according to the formula, subject to the $250,000 floor.