Mr. Clarke

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they unjustifiably terminated and repudiated a residential renovation contract.

The trial judge awarded the respondent contractor $105,804.92 plus costs.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the trial judge's exclusion of their proposed expert, interpretation of the contract, factual findings on completion percentage, and credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings.

Leave to appeal the costs award was also denied.

The parties separated after a 30-year cohabitation and 21-year marriage.

The trial addressed the equalization of net family property, the valuation of the respondent's excavation business, and the determination of his income for child and spousal support purposes.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for a constructive trust over a property owned by the applicant.

The court valued the respondent's business by adjusting the fair market value of its real estate and equipment, and imputed an additional $25,000 per year in income to the respondent due to his practice of receiving unreported cash and claiming excessive amortization expenses.

The court also granted a charging order against the respondent's properties to secure support arrears and equalization, but dismissed the applicant's request for a restraining order.

The Appellant, Houssein Awada, appealed an arbitration award concerning net family property (NFP) equalization and income imputation for child and spousal support.

Mr. Awada argued that two properties (Laurier Avenue and Palmerston Drive) were held in trust for his brother and should not be included in his NFP, and that the Arbitrator erred in calculating his 2016 income and in not imputing a higher income to the Respondent, Sheryl Kristy O’Connell.

The court upheld the Arbitrator's findings on all issues, applying a standard of review of correctness for questions of law and palpable and overriding error for questions of mixed fact and law.

The court found no errors in the Arbitrator's assessment of evidence, credibility, or the imputation of income, emphasizing deference to the Arbitrator's findings.

The applicant mother sought to enforce and vary a 2008 child support order, including retroactive adjustments for child support and section 7 expenses for two adult children.

The respondent father disputed the retroactive application of support principles, arguing one child was no longer a "child of the marriage" when the motion was initiated.

The court characterized the mother's motion primarily as one of enforcement due to the father's failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations under the existing order.

The court determined the father's income for various years, his province of residence for child support table calculations, and the termination dates for child support for both children.

The court also addressed post-secondary education expenses, excluding bus passes, and found the father failed to prove his contributions.

For section 7 expenses, the court emphasized the requirement for advance written consent for each expense, finding the mother had disregarded this process.

The applicant sought an order in the nature of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to challenge a correctional decision to transfer him from Millhaven Institution (maximum security, segregation) to Stony Mountain Institution (maximum security, general population).

The applicant argued that the proposed transfer would significantly reduce his residual liberty by impacting family contact, access to support organizations, and likely leading to renewed segregation.

The court found no factual basis for these claims, noting a lack of evidence regarding family visits, the speculative nature of lost support, and mere speculation concerning future segregation.

The court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate a deprivation of residual liberty required for habeas corpus relief, as the transfer was considered a lateral move not amounting to a substantial change in incarceration conditions.

The application was dismissed.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for further production and disclosure.

The respondent wife sought extensive disclosure and valuation of the applicant husband's family's businesses and a family trust, as well as oral discovery of non-parties.

The court dismissed the requests for corporate and trust valuations for equalization purposes, finding the husband had no ownership interest.

Applying the proportionality principle, the court limited disclosure for income determination purposes to records of personal expenses paid by the business or the husband's parents, and quashed the summonses to non-parties.

The wife was also ordered to produce certain bank statements and records of sold jewelry.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for further production and disclosure.

The respondent wife sought extensive corporate and trust records, as well as the examination of non-parties, to value the husband's family business and determine his income for support purposes.

The court dismissed the request for corporate valuation disclosure, finding the husband had no ownership interest in the business and his interest in a family trust was nil.

The court partially granted disclosure regarding the husband's income, ordering production of credit card statements and particulars of personal expenses paid by the company or his father.

The request to examine non-parties was dismissed as disproportionate, and the summonses were quashed.

Homeowners moved for summary judgment seeking coverage under a title insurance policy after discovering that load‑bearing walls had been removed during prior renovations, rendering the home structurally unsafe.

The municipality issued an order requiring temporary shoring under the Building Code Act, 1992, but no permanent remediation order was made and no order was registered on title.

The court held that the title insurance policy insured risks affecting ownership of title rather than the physical condition or market value of the property.

Because the municipal order did not affect title and was not registered on title, the claimed remediation costs were not covered.

The court also held that where no genuine issue requiring trial exists, the court may grant summary judgment against the moving party even if the responding party did not seek it.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the applicants’ entire action.