Diana Isaac

In an uncontested trial following the striking of the Respondent's pleadings, the Applicant sought a declaration of resulting trust over the matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, resolution of retroactive support claims, and a divorce.

The court found that the matrimonial home was held in a resulting trust for the Applicant, as she had made all financial contributions and title was placed in the Respondent's name for liability purposes.

The court determined that the Applicant had significantly overpaid spousal support and dismissed all retroactive support claims by setting them to zero.

A divorce was granted, and the Applicant was awarded fixed costs.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order for the applicant to contribute to joint debts and to vacate a jointly-owned cottage property.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for debt contribution, finding the applicant lacked the present ability to pay and that an accounting could be made at trial.

However, the court granted the applicant sole vacant possession of the cottage property, requiring him to assume responsibility for its ongoing costs and arrange insurance, dispensing with the respondent's consent for insurance.

The court also enjoined the respondent from disturbing the applicant's enjoyment of the property.

The applicant sought interim spousal support of $9,000 per month, while the respondent contended the appropriate amount was $4,370.

The court found both parties were not entirely candid regarding their financial disclosures.

After imputing incomes to both parties and considering their needs and ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay $5,260 per month in temporary spousal support starting January 1, 2021.

The applicant was made responsible for cottage expenses, including a $500 monthly contribution to a line of credit.

Costs were reserved pending resolution of disclosure issues.

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a motion judge's order granting specific performance for breach of contract.

The appellate court found that the motion judge erred in law by awarding specific performance without evidence or a finding that the property was unique, which resulted in a windfall for the respondent.

The matter was remitted for trial.