Christopher Caruana

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 brought a garnishment hearing to enforce a 2011 Quebec family law judgment against the respondent.

The applicant sought to reduce the statutory wage exemption under the Wages Act, hold the garnishee companies liable for the full judgment debt, and compel further corporate productions.

The court reduced the respondent's wage exemption from 80 percent to 60 percent due to his conduct in evading payment.

The court also ordered one garnishee company to pay 40 percent of management fees it had paid to the respondent's alter ego corporation.

The court declined to hold the garnishee companies liable for the full debt, finding they had not concealed income or filed void statements, but ordered limited documentary production regarding the respondent's shares in a holding company.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued the claimed amount was excessive and requested that no costs be ordered, asserting the dispute could have been avoided if the defendant had obtained a current appraisal when the property was sold.

The court held that the core issue had already been litigated and decided against the plaintiff in earlier injunction proceedings and that the plaintiff chose to re-litigate it.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the requested partial indemnity costs reasonable.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the amount claimed.