Errol Treslan

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.

Following a seven-day construction lien trial where the plaintiff recovered a modest amount but the defendants succeeded on the key issue of defective workmanship, the court determined costs.

Both parties had advanced unreasonable positions at times, but the plaintiff's initial intransigence and failure to acknowledge obvious deficiencies were significant factors.

The court awarded the defendants $15,000 in costs, to be set off against the plaintiff's trial judgment.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for the unpaid balance of a contract to build the shell of a log home, registering a construction lien against the property.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging numerous construction deficiencies, incomplete work, and Building Code violations.

After a seven-day trial involving multiple expert witnesses, the court found that the plaintiff had breached the contract through poor workmanship and unauthorized deviations from the plans.

The court reduced the plaintiff's claim by the cost of necessary repairs and awarded the defendants damages for delay, resulting in a net judgment for the plaintiff of $30,595.63.

The mother brought a motion seeking a parenting schedule she argued would better reflect the intent of a prior final order providing for near equal parenting time.

The father opposed the motion and sought enforcement of the existing order, an order directing mediation pursuant to the dispute‑resolution clause in the order, and an order striking portions of the mother's affidavit that disclosed settlement negotiations.

The court held that settlement communications included in the affidavit were privileged and abusive to disclose and struck the relevant paragraph.

The court emphasized that parties who agree to mediation as a precondition to litigation should ordinarily be held to that obligation.

However, given the impending expiry of the existing schedule and the need for certainty for the child, the court imposed a parenting schedule for 2013 consistent with the parameters of the prior order.

In matrimonial litigation involving equalization claims and control of a seasonal motel business, the husband sought authorization to complete an agreement of purchase and sale of the property to a third‑party purchaser, disclosure from the court‑appointed receiver, and temporary permission to travel outside Canada to attend his mother's funeral.

The court found the purchaser to be a bona fide arm’s‑length third party and held the negotiated purchase price reasonable given the business’s financial losses, receivership, and lack of competing offers.

The court granted disclosure from the receiver and permitted the husband to travel subject to security conditions due to support and costs arrears.

It further ordered the wife to remove the matrimonial home designation and authorized completion of the sale with proceeds to be paid into court pending resolution of the family claims.

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.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when a snowmobile track shredded while the defendants were attempting to start it.

The defendants sought a declaration that their automobile insurer (TD) and their property insurer (Germania) had a duty to defend the negligence action.

The motion judge found that TD had a duty to defend, as the injuries arose from the ownership, use, or operation of a motor vehicle, and that Germania did not, as its policy excluded such claims.

TD appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in admitting affidavit evidence regarding coverage preconditions and in finding a duty to defend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the affidavit evidence was properly admitted as it only affected coverage and not liability, and that the negligence claims were inextricably linked to the use and operation of the snowmobile, thus falling within TD's coverage and Germania's exclusion clause.