Glen Russell Carey

The moving party sought to terminate his spousal support obligation after losing his employment.

The responding party opposed, arguing he should use his capital to continue payments.

The court found the loss of employment constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court suspended the spousal support obligation, concluding it was unfair to require the moving party to deplete his capital to fund support when both parties had comparable financial positions and capital assets.

The applicant, Kenneth Holtby, sought costs after a 17-day trial where he largely succeeded in retaining sole ownership of farm assets and land against the respondent, Cheryl Draper.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the applicant to be the more successful party, particularly on the major ownership issues, and was entitled to costs.

However, the requested quantum of $185,000 was reduced to $100,000 due to the applicant's chronic non-compliance with court orders, the respondent's more reasonable settlement efforts, and discrepancies in the applicant's costs filings.

The court also considered the respondent's partial success on equalization and constructive trust claims and her ability to pay.

This endorsement follows a lengthy trial where the applicant husband was found to own the farm assets.

The parties were unable to agree on the quantum of equalization payment, amounts owing for Lot 8, repayment for Class B shares, and costs/interest.

The court addressed these outstanding financial issues, largely adopting the respondent wife's calculations for farm equipment and vehicles, using averages for cattle and crops, and setting the land value (excluding Lot 8) at $300,000.

The court also ordered the husband to pay the wife for Lot 8 and Class B shares, including prejudgment interest, and granted the wife's request for security against the husband's property for the equalization payment due to his history of asset reorganization.

Costs submissions were deferred.

In a family law proceeding, the parties brought competing motions seeking various interim relief including disclosure, equalization advances, support adjustments, reimbursement claims, and other orders.

The court emphasized that interim orders are intended to provide temporary structure pending trial and discouraged repeated motions attempting to re‑litigate previously determined issues.

Several claims were dismissed or deferred to trial due to insufficient evidence or because they were more appropriately resolved on a full evidentiary record.

The court increased interim spousal support after the cessation of child support and imputed limited farming income to the husband.

A restraining order was issued preventing the wife from accessing the husband’s financial records or business premises through self‑help methods.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a short marriage.

During the relationship, the parties engaged in a corporate reorganization to shield the husband's farm assets from his creditors, including his former wife and a victim of his sexual impropriety.

This involved transferring a 50-acre parcel to the wife and issuing her half the common shares in a newly formed farm corporation.

The husband claimed a resulting trust over all the assets, arguing he never intended to gift them to the wife.

The court agreed, finding the transfers were gratuitous and part of a judgment-proofing scheme, and the wife failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust.

Consequently, the wife's claims for occupation rent were dismissed.

However, the court ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment and to compensate the wife under a constructive trust for mortgage and tax payments she made on the 50-acre property.

Following a lengthy family law trial in which the wife was largely successful, the court addressed remaining issues concerning security for various payments ordered against the husband.

The court confirmed its authority under s. 34(1)(k) of the Family Law Act to secure child and spousal support, as well as prejudgment interest related to the equalization payment, by way of a charge on the husband's property.

However, it declined to secure payment of land rent and the prejudgment interest associated with that rent, finding that ss. 10 and 12 of the Family Law Act did not apply to those obligations.

The court also refused to secure costs through the property charge, concluding that the relevant rule applies only where a costs order remains unpaid after default.

Following a family law trial involving spousal support, retroactive support, and property equalization, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The successful party sought costs exceeding $99,000 relying on settlement offers and Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that the requirements of Rule 18(14) were not met because earlier offers had been withdrawn and the final offer was not clearly more favourable than the judgment regarding property.

However, the offers remained relevant under Rule 18(16) and the court also considered the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, disclosure delays, and the complexity of income and valuation issues.

Balancing these factors, the court awarded $85,000 in costs plus disbursements and HST.

The parties entered into a pre-nuptial agreement one day before their wedding, agreeing to keep all real and personal property separate.

After a 17-year marriage, they separated and the wife successfully applied to set aside the contract at trial.

The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in setting aside the contract based on an improper application of the test for misrepresentation, the absence of support provisions, and the retrospective application of section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

A new trial was ordered.