Gregory Ste. Marie

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to set aside a marriage contract following her husband's death, alleging she did not understand the contract and that he failed to disclose significant assets.

The respondent estate opposed the motion, arguing that the applicant's credibility was a genuine issue for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant's uncorroborated evidence contradicted the written contract and certificates of independent legal advice, and that a full trial was necessary to assess her credibility and the validity of the contract.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day trial concerning equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The trial judge found both parties had negative net family property and awarded Ms. Lumsden $26,500 in lump sum spousal support.

The court noted the case was of little financial value and driven by costs.

Mr. Nixon, the successful party at trial, sought substantial costs.

The court found both parties behaved unreasonably during litigation, advancing claims for leverage and failing to provide timely financial disclosure, leading to disproportionate legal costs.

Consequently, the court denied costs for the period preceding Mr. Nixon's November 15, 2019 offer to settle.

Mr. Nixon was awarded costs on a full recovery basis from that date, fixed at $134,266.

An additional request by Mr. Nixon for preferential treatment of his claim over Ms. Lumsden's payments to her counsel and experts was dismissed due to lack of legal support.

This trial addressed the equalization of net family property and spousal support following a short, financially separate marriage.

The court found no equalization payment owing as both parties had negative net family property, deemed zero under the Family Law Act.

For spousal support, no compensatory entitlement was found, but a needs-based entitlement was recognized due to the respondent's decline in living standard post-separation.

A lump sum spousal support of $26,500 was awarded to the respondent.

The applicant's claim for damages related to a matrimonial home designation was dismissed due to lack of legal basis and evidence.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, interim disbursements, a restraining order, and the appointment of a receiver/manager for the respondent husband's companies.

The husband sought to terminate an existing non-dissipation order and requested access to their 15-year-old son.

Due to the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure, the court imputed his income at $600,000 per year and ordered interim child and spousal support accordingly.

The court continued the non-dissipation order to protect the wife's equalization claim but declined to appoint a receiver/manager or grant a restraining order.

The wife's request for interim disbursements was denied as she was not impecunious.

This decision concerns a costs award following two motions in a family law matter.

The Applicant father sought various orders including joint custody, a parenting schedule, travel arrangements, and support, while the Respondent mother sought urgent travel to Japan with the child.

Many issues were resolved by consent, but the parenting schedule and costs remained contentious.

The court found the Applicant largely successful, noting the Respondent's unreasonable delay in consenting to previously offered terms and her conduct regarding conflicting travel dates.

The Respondent was ordered to pay $8,750.00 in costs to the Applicant, in addition to a prior $500 award, with the quantum influenced by her financial position.