David Clarke

The Applicant, Adele Cummings, sought leave to bring a motion to access $140,000 from her anticipated equalization payment to finance her upcoming trial.

The Respondent, Stephen Horwitz, opposed, arguing that leave should only be granted in exceptional circumstances after a settlement conference.

The court granted leave, finding that the Applicant's request constituted an exceptional circumstance due to her limited earning capacity, significant litigation costs, and the impact of the trial on her future financial security, emphasizing the importance of access to justice.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a 2008 separation agreement, seeking to terminate child support for three adult children, terminate spousal support, and rescind arrears.

The responding party mother cross-moved for retroactive adjustments based on imputed income.

The court terminated child support for the two oldest children as of their 23rd birthdays, as agreed in the separation agreement, and ordered table support for the youngest child until her 23rd birthday.

The court declined to terminate spousal support immediately, ordering it to continue until 13 years from the date of the agreement.

The court declined to impute income to the father and refused to rescind his arrears, finding he had no reasonable excuse for unilaterally reducing support payments without formal variation.

The plaintiff, a corporate entity managing a sports facility, brought an action against several soccer associations for negligence and intentional interference with economic relations (unlawful means tort).

The claims arose from the issuance of International Transfer Certificates for two players, the non-approval of an invitational tournament, and communications regarding unsanctioned indoor soccer leagues.

The court dismissed the action, finding that no duty of care existed between the plaintiff and the associations, as the plaintiff was not a member and had actively distanced itself from them.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of unlawful acts against third parties or intent to harm the plaintiff, and concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove any damages.

The parties separated after a 20-year relationship.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, including the treatment of the respondent's interest in a family trust created during an estate freeze.

The court found the respondent had sufficient control over the trust to include its value in his net family property, and declined to exclude it as a gift because the applicant was a co-beneficiary.

The court imputed corporate pre-tax income to the respondent, fixing his income at $242,148, and ordered retroactive child and spousal support.

The matrimonial home was valued at $1,000,000.

Following a five‑day family law trial involving the validity of a marriage contract, spousal support, and child support, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the respondent was completely successful in defending the validity of the marriage contract, which consumed most of the trial, while success on spousal support was divided and the respondent was more successful on child support.

Both parties were found to have behaved unreasonably during the litigation, including unfounded allegations regarding the contract and failures of financial disclosure.

Applying proportionality and the factors in subrule 24(11), the court assessed partial indemnity costs across the issues.

A net costs award was ordered in favour of the respondent.

The appellants sold their business to the respondent under a Share Purchase Agreement that included an initial payment and potential Earn-Out Payments based on future earnings (EBIAT).

The trial judge found that revenues from a specific project were excluded from the EBIAT calculation and that the earnings threshold was not met.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by interpreting the contract's calculation provision in isolation rather than reading the agreement as a whole.

The Court also found the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the expert financial evidence regarding revenue deferral, and ordered a new trial solely on whether the earnings threshold was met.