David Jarvis

The plaintiffs, two portfolio managers, sued their former employer, an investment firm, claiming entitlement to $1.38 million in performance fees earned by the fund they managed.

The plaintiffs argued their employment agreements implicitly included these fees based on industry standards, or alternatively, that they were entitled to them under quantum meruit or an oral agreement.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the employment agreements unambiguously excluded performance fees, which were instead governed by a separate arrangement with a senior portfolio manager.

The court also rejected the quantum meruit claim as the plaintiffs were fully compensated under their contracts, and found the oral agreement was conditional on improved behaviour that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate.

A late claim for discretionary bonuses was also dismissed as it was not properly pleaded.

Following a lengthy high-net-worth family and trust trial, the court passed the family trust accounts and dismissed objections alleging that the trustee owed additional sums to the trust or that the trust held an equity interest in the payor's operating company.

Although the trustee had breached fiduciary duties by commingling funds and failing to maintain proper records, the court found the beneficiaries had received benefits exceeding the trust corpus and limited the remedy to a personal costs order against the trustee for the passing of accounts.

The court fixed disputed valuation issues for equalization, including the matrimonial home, cottage, boats, motorcycle, and the payor's business interests, rejected unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, and ordered an equalization payment with prejudgment interest.

Applying the Divorce Act and Child Support Guidelines, the court set the recipient's investment-based income, fixed the payor's support income at $5.9 million, ordered indefinite spousal support of $125,000 per month, and awarded limited summer child support for the youngest child.