Douglas A. Quirt

The parties separated after a 27-year marriage.

At trial, the judge ordered the wife to pay an equalization payment, ordered the husband to pay indefinite spousal support based on imputed incomes, and awarded full indemnity costs to the husband.

The wife appealed the spousal support, equalization, and costs orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge failed to explain the basis for imputing $484,356 in annual income to the wife, precluding meaningful appellate review.

The court also set aside the costs award, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the husband's settlement offer and his degree of success at trial.

The spousal support and costs issues were remitted to the trial judge, while the equalization payment was upheld.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s commercial tenancy action on the basis that it was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged that construction, signage interference, and other landlord conduct caused a severe decline in its restaurant business at a shopping mall.

The court held that the limitation period began when the plaintiff knew the defendants’ conduct had caused damage to the business, not when the business ultimately vacated the premises.

Evidence from the plaintiff’s principal indicated that he knew the business was “sinking” by July 2006.

As the action was not commenced until February 25, 2009, the claim was brought outside the two‑year limitation period and was dismissed on summary judgment.

The appellant solicitor appealed the decision of Forestell J., which confirmed the assessment of an Assessment Officer following a four-day hearing.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge was correct in concluding that the Assessment Officer's findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank on a guarantee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision.

The terms of the guarantee were clear and unambiguous, and there was no basis to admit parol evidence to contradict them.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order requiring payment on a promissory note.

They argued the motion judge erred by not ordering a stay of execution or directing the monies be paid into court pending the resolution of a related oppression remedy action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to disturb the motion judge's determination that the promissory note was sufficiently disconnected from the oppression action, and noting no prejudice was alleged.