George Karahotzitis

The parties executed a separation agreement containing an explicit release of spousal support and a provision for recalculating child support if the husband's income materially increased.

Years later, the wife sought spousal support after the husband's income increased significantly.

The trial judge implied a term requiring the husband to disclose income increases, linked it to the spousal support release, and awarded retroactive and future spousal support.

The Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal, holding that a term cannot be implied if it contradicts an express term of the agreement.

The implied obligation to disclose income for spousal support purposes contradicted the express release of spousal support.

The appellants appealed a judgment that ordered judgment in accordance with an offer to settle, permitted equitable set-off, and extinguished the remainder of the debt owing to the bank.

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment regarding the offer to settle and equitable set-off, but found no evidentiary foundation or reasons for extinguishing the remainder of the debt.

The appeal was allowed in part to vary the judgment, directing that all monies paid pursuant to the offer to settle be used to set-off the indebtedness, without extinguishing the remaining debt.

The appellant executor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $75,000 in dependant's support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The trial judge found the respondent was a 'spouse' who had continuously cohabited with the deceased for at least three years prior to his death, and that her evidence was sufficiently corroborated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding cohabitation or the quantum of support awarded.

The appellant estate executor sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal from a judgment awarding the respondent a lump sum payment under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondent argued the judgment was for support and not automatically stayed pending appeal.

The court granted the extension of time but ordered the appellant to pay the judgment amount plus pre-judgment interest in trust as a condition of the extension, finding the judgment was not stayed or alternatively lifting the stay.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order that struck her claim based on issue estoppel arising from a prior solicitor's assessment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessment officer made no finding on the question of negligence, either explicitly or implicitly.

Therefore, issue estoppel did not preclude the appellant from alleging negligence or breach of contract in her subsequent action against the respondent solicitor.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, except for the portion seeking to strike the jury notice, which was remitted to the Superior Court on consent.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's costs order in a family law proceeding regarding custody.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in upholding a previous judge's costs order that had been implicitly set aside, and in awarding an amount substantially in excess of party and party costs.

However, the Court noted that the respondent had made a reasonable settlement proposal regarding custody which the appellant rejected, justifying some costs to the respondent.

The Court granted leave to appeal costs, varied the trial judge's costs order to $4,000, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal, initially indicating there would be no order as to costs due to divided success.

However, the respondent by cross-appeal submitted that he was entirely successful, as his only involvement was responding to the cross-appeal.

The Court agreed, finding no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The fact that another party may have paid his legal fees did not deprive him of his claim for costs.

Costs of the cross-appeal were fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis plus disbursements.

The appellants appealed and the respondent cross-appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family properties.

The issues on appeal included the valuation of a property known as Block 108, the trial judge's finding of undisclosed assets, the deduction of notional income tax on the deemed disposition of shares, and the beneficial ownership of various properties.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact, assessments of credibility, or exercise of discretion.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.