David L. Lanthier

The parties separated after a long marriage during which they built a successful family business.

They settled property issues, with the respondent buying out the applicant's share of the business for over $1.6 million.

The applicant sought spousal support, arguing economic disadvantage and loss of the pre-separation standard of living.

The respondent argued that the property equalization precluded spousal support and that the applicant had no need.

The court found the applicant entitled to support, distinguishing the equalization of a business from a pension, and ordered the respondent to pay $9,584 per month based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, while declining to impute additional income to the respondent for alleged undisclosed cash transactions or business perks.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing claims against several individual defendants on the basis that all contractual dealings were with a corporate entity operating under a business name.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known it was contracting with a corporation rather than individuals.

The court reviewed evidence including cheques, website references, and business name registration and applied the summary judgment framework under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff had sufficient notice that it was dealing with a corporation, leaving a genuine issue requiring a trial.

However, the claim against one individual defendant was dismissed for lack of any evidence of involvement in the transactions.