G. Smits

A dispute arose among partners in a long‑standing farming partnership following notice of termination given under the partnership agreement.

The court was asked to interpret provisions of the partnership agreement concerning termination, partner draws, and occupation of homes situated on partnership property.

The court held that the partnership terminated six months after written notice and declared that all partnership draws should have ceased upon termination.

The court further determined that partners occupying houses on the farm were required to pay fair market value rent from the date of termination while winding up the partnership.

Orders were made directing the sale of farm equipment, cattle, and the farm property within specified timelines.

The plaintiffs were partially successful at trial, establishing that their mother breached her fiduciary duty through physical abuse, but failing to establish claims regarding sexual abuse against her and their grandparents.

In this costs decision, the court awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs of $62,899.60 against the mother to condemn her assaultive behavior, despite their limited success.

The successful grandparent defendants were awarded modest partial indemnity costs of $13,000.

Pre-judgment interest was fixed at 5 percent, but limited to a 5-year period due to the plaintiffs' delay in prosecuting the claim.

The plaintiffs sued their mother and maternal grandparents for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging they failed to protect them from childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by their uncles.

The plaintiffs also alleged their mother physically abused them.

The court dismissed the claims regarding the sexual abuse, finding insufficient evidence that the mother or grandparents knew or ought to have known about the abuse at the time.

However, the court found the mother liable for breach of fiduciary duty due to repeated physical abuse and awarded each plaintiff $35,000 in damages.

The applicant brought a motion concerning enforcement of property transfer relating to the former matrimonial home and temporary parenting access arrangements.

The respondent brought a cross‑motion seeking enforcement of an existing temporary order permitting overnight access and requesting additional mid‑week parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, the court concluded that increased contact with the respondent was appropriate.

The court ordered a rotating two‑week schedule providing alternate weekend overnight access and mid‑week visits, with more mid‑week time during weeks without weekend parenting time.

Although the applicant succeeded on the issue relating to the transfer of the matrimonial home and the respondent succeeded on the access issues, success overall was divided and no costs were awarded.