Errol Treslan

The court determined how to divide $406,000 in insurance settlement proceeds between a mother and son after a fire destroyed their family poultry processing plant.

The parties had rebuilt the plant using a combination of insurance, mortgages, and personal funds, but did not have a clear written agreement on how to divide any insurance settlement.

The court found that both parties contributed roughly equally to the reconstruction and ordered the insurance settlement to be divided equally.

Claims of unconscionability and unjust enrichment were rejected.

The applicant, W.G., brought a motion to change spousal support, seeking its termination after 14 years of payments to the respondent, K.G. W.G. argued a material change in circumstances due to K.G.'s improved earning capacity and the extended duration of support.

K.G. opposed termination, arguing her health had not significantly improved and her income was insufficient.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including substantial income increases for both parties, K.G.'s improved health and earning capacity, and the termination of child support.

The court concluded that K.G. remained entitled to spousal support, particularly given the compensatory nature of the original award and W.G.'s significantly increased income.

However, the court determined it was appropriate to limit the support's duration and step down the quantum, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines' global maximum due to K.G.'s ongoing partial disability and the causal connection between W.G.'s income increase and the marriage.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondents breached an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) by failing to close a commercial property transaction and an order forfeiting the $100,000 deposit.

The respondents argued there was an agreement to extend the closing date and that the APS did not explicitly provide for deposit forfeiture.

The court found no valid extension agreement and affirmed the principle that a deposit is forfeited upon buyer default, even without explicit contractual terms.

Relief from forfeiture was denied as the deposit was not disproportionate to the damages suffered ($35,000 loss on resale) and retention was not unconscionable.

This appeal concerns the applicable scale of costs when a municipality unsuccessfully appeals an expropriation matter to the courts.

The Ontario Municipal Board ordered compensation to the property owner.

The municipality appealed to the Divisional Court, which dismissed the appeal but awarded only partial indemnity costs of $7,500 rather than full indemnity costs of $23,586.84.

The Divisional Court declined to apply section 32(1) of the Expropriations Act, ruling that ordinary court costs rules applied.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the principle reflected in section 32(1) should apply to court proceedings, entitling the successful respondent to full indemnity costs.

The applicant sought to vary a separation agreement to obtain base child support for his 14-year-old son, Austin, from the respondent.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances and that the separation agreement was not ambiguous regarding child support termination.

The agreement clearly contemplated child support would end when a beneficiary ceased to be a "child of the marriage." The court subsequently awarded the respondent modest costs.

The parties sought directions regarding the sale of the matrimonial home, division of household contents, and disclosure obligations following earlier court orders.

The court found both parties had failed to comply with the prior order requiring cooperation in appointing a real estate valuator and arranging sale of the property.

The court set a structured listing price reduction schedule for the matrimonial home and provided detailed directions regarding preparation and sale.

It also clarified the treatment of inherited or gifted property under the Family Law Act, confirming that inherited property does not become family property through use, while gifts may require evidence of intent.

The court ordered further disclosure of financial records and established a process for dividing or auctioning disputed household contents.