Guy Martel

The applicant father sought shared decision-making, a shared parenting schedule, child support, spousal support, and an equalization payment, challenging the validity of the parties' prenuptial agreement.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, child support based on imputed income, and validation of the prenuptial agreement.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making due to findings of family violence and maintained her primary residence of the child.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the father due to intentional underemployment, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, dismissed his spousal support claim, and upheld the prenuptial agreement.

The parties, both veterinarians, separated after a 10.5-year marriage.

The trial addressed equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

A major issue was the valuation and inclusion of the respondent's survivor interest in the applicant's pension, which the court ruled must be included in her net family property, resulting in a significant equalization payment owed to the applicant.

To satisfy this payment, the court ordered the transfer of the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home to the applicant.

The court also awarded the respondent retroactive and ongoing spousal support on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, recognizing the economic disadvantage she suffered from the marriage breakdown.

The parties separated in 2019 after a 19-year marriage.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and an equalization payment, while the father sought joint decision-making, equal parenting time, and spousal support.

The court found that the father had engaged in coercive control and family violence, making joint decision-making impossible, and awarded sole decision-making to the mother.

The court maintained the existing parenting schedule, ordered the father to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissed his claim for spousal support.

The father was also ordered to pay an equalization payment of $178,615.79, along with reimbursements for joint expenses and a penalty for failing to disclose his pension valuation.

The parties separated after a five-year marriage.

Following a nine-day trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property, including the valuation of the husband's foreign properties in Morocco, and ordered the equalization payment to be made via a pension rollover.

The court also ordered the husband to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, proportionate shares of section 7 expenses, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support on a compensatory and needs basis.

The husband's claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

The applicant, who was terminally ill with ALS, brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief and grant an immediate divorce to maximize pension survivor benefits for his children.

The respondent agreed to the divorce but sought security for outstanding and future child support, as the applicant had cancelled his life insurance contrary to their separation agreement.

The court granted the severance and immediate divorce, finding that the pension survivor benefits constituted reasonable arrangements for child support.

The court also ordered the applicant to temporarily designate the respondent as the beneficiary of his supplementary death benefit in trust to secure any outstanding child support obligations.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a nine-year marriage.

The mother sought sole decision-making authority, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority due to the father's coercive and controlling behaviour and the parties' inability to communicate.

The father was granted parenting time on alternating weekends and specified weekdays.

The court dismissed the father's claim to impute income to the mother, ordering child and spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes.

The father was ordered to pay spousal support for 10 years at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, an equalization payment of $213,870.11, and post-separation adjustments.

The plaintiff, a former Vice President of Human Resources, sued his former employer for breach of a verbal contract and negligent misrepresentation regarding his pension benefits.

He alleged the employer's former president verbally agreed to pay all costs to transfer his previous pensionable service to the employer's Supplementary Pension Plan, or alternatively, to set up a fund to cover the difference.

He also claimed he relied on an erroneous pension estimate provided by a subordinate when deciding to retire.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged verbal agreement and that it was unreasonable for him, given his expertise and knowledge of the pension plan's restrictions, to rely on the subordinate's inaccurate estimate.

Following a successful appeal by the respondent regarding the normal retirement age used to value the applicant's pension, the matter was remitted to the Superior Court to recalculate the equalization payment.

The court adopted the applicant's expert valuation of the pension at age 60, finding the experts' preliminary values were less than $1,000 apart.

The court strongly criticized the respondent for unnecessarily prolonging the litigation and failing to comply with previous court orders.

The respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding equalization payment and costs, failing which the amounts would be transferred directly from his investment accounts or pension.

The plaintiff, who had pre-existing disabilities including hydrocephalus and kyphoscoliosis, suffered paraparesis after the defendant radiologists punctured his heart during a filter removal procedure.

Liability was admitted, and the trial proceeded as an assessment of damages.

The defendants argued the 'crumbling skull' doctrine applied, suggesting the plaintiff would have become wheelchair-bound regardless of their negligence.

The court rejected this argument, finding no cogent evidence to support it.

The court awarded substantial damages, including $250,000 in general damages for the plaintiff, $90,000 each to his parents for loss of care, guidance, and companionship, over $1.5 million for past attendant care, and over $5.7 million for future care costs, subject to a 15% negative contingency.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a recreational hockey game when the defendant delivered a blindside hit to his head.

The plaintiff suffered a concussion, broken teeth, and facial cuts, leading to long-term cognitive and functional limitations that impacted his ability to work as a personal trainer.

The defendant argued the collision was accidental and that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent due to his choice of facial protection and chronic cannabis use.

The court found the defendant fully liable, concluding the hit was intentional or reckless and outside the bounds of fair play.

The court awarded the plaintiff $702,551 in damages, including general damages and past and future income loss.

The appellant appealed a family arbitration award regarding the calculation of spousal support under a separation agreement.

The core issue was the interpretation of 'previously equalized property' and whether the gross or net value (after contingent tax liabilities) of the respondent's pension should be excluded from his income to avoid 'double dipping'.

The Arbitrator accepted the joint actuary's methodology of deducting the gross equalized portion from the gross pension received.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement or her reliance on the actuarial evidence.

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck by the defendant's vehicle while crossing a street.

The defendant was found 100% liable.

The plaintiff had a highly complex pre-existing medical history, including chronic pain, sarcoidosis, and melanoma.

The court found the plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and other injuries from the collision, which exacerbated his pre-existing conditions and impaired his ability to manage them.

The court assessed damages for the plaintiff and his family members, but reduced the total awards by 25% applying the crumbling skull principle, as the plaintiff would have been detrimentally affected by his pre-existing conditions regardless of the accident.

The injuries were found to meet the statutory threshold.

The applicant brought a Motion to Change seeking to terminate spousal support following her retirement from the federal government.

The respondent, who had sacrificed his career to support the applicant's career and care for their child, argued against termination.

The court found a material change in circumstances upon the applicant reaching age 59.92.

Applying the rule against double recovery from Boston v. Boston, the court determined that an appropriate support order could be achieved without resorting to the unequalized portion of the applicant's pension.

Spousal support was reduced but not terminated, set at $2,086 per month until age 67, and $1,304 per month thereafter.

The parties separated after a 31-year marriage during which both had successful careers in the public service.

The applicant sought spousal support, equalization of net family property, and life insurance to secure support.

The court found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, noting she assumed primary childcare responsibilities which allowed the respondent to advance to Deputy Minister.

The court determined the commencement date for support, valued the parties' pensions using standard mortality, and addressed post-separation income increases and double-dipping.

The respondent was ordered to pay a lump sum for retroactive support, ongoing periodic support, and to designate the applicant as beneficiary on life insurance policies.

The parties separated after a short-term marriage following an incident where the respondent suffered a severely fractured wrist.

The trial addressed the division of net family property, specifically missing items the applicant claimed were in the respondent's possession, and the respondent's civil claim for damages for assault and battery.

The court found the applicant failed to prove the respondent retained most of the missing property, but added $10,000 to the equalization payment for missing silver.

On the tort claim, the court found the applicant committed battery by throwing the respondent out of the house, causing her injury.

The court awarded the respondent $65,000 in general and aggravated damages, $25,000 for loss of competitive advantage, and specific future care costs to be calculated.