3 total
The court refused to impose a resulting trust on foreign property against a spouse's wishes.
This trial concerned the equalization of net family property following a marriage breakdown.
The central dispute revolved around the valuation and attribution of a Mexican vacation property, legally owned by a corporation in which the respondent held shares, but which the respondent argued the applicant had a beneficial interest in.
The court also addressed the valuation of various assets and liabilities, including pre-marriage assets and post-separation adjustments.
The court ultimately declined to impose a resulting trust on the Mexican property in favour of the applicant, attributing its full value to the respondent, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment to the applicant.
The court varied a separation agreement to require a father to contribute to his children's post-secondary education expenses and adjusted spousal support following his job loss.
The applicant mother brought a motion to change a separation agreement dated May 8, 2008, seeking increased child support and contribution from the respondent father toward section 7 post-secondary education expenses for three adult children.
The respondent father's employment was terminated in 2012, and he subsequently obtained new employment at a lower income.
The court found a material change in circumstances and determined the father's income for support purposes.
The court ordered the father to pay child support for the youngest child and to contribute 67% of post-secondary education expenses for two of the children, with retroactive arrears to be paid after ongoing support obligations ceased.
Spousal support was adjusted based on the father's current income, with provisions for further adjustment upon termination of child support obligations.
Successful party on interim custody motion awarded reduced costs.
A costs decision following interim custody motions in family proceedings.
The respondent to the motion sought costs after being the successful party on the substantive issue concerning a rotating 48‑hour parenting schedule.
The court found the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs but considered partial success by the other party on daycare arrangements, the absence of formal offers to settle, and unreasonable unilateral conduct relating to parenting time.
Balancing these factors, the court reduced the amount sought and ordered partial costs payable.
