Jason Huang

The applicant sought a declaration that he had complied with a 2011 separation agreement, while the respondent sought enforcement of the agreement, retroactive child support, and reimbursement for funds advanced to their daughter.

The court found the applicant's evidence regarding alleged variations to the separation agreement to be not credible and ordered him to pay $360,693 for preconstruction deposits and $845,816.44 for the matrimonial home mortgage.

The court also imputed income to the applicant and ordered him to pay $19,333 in retroactive child support, but dismissed the respondent's claim regarding the daughter's condo.

The applicant sought accident benefits for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, and the applicant argued the denial notice was non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule because it was late and lacked sufficient medical reasons.

The Tribunal found that while the notice was one day late, it provided sufficient medical reasons.

Applying the Divisional Court's decision in Catic, the Tribunal held the treatment plan was not payable under s. 38(11) because the expenses were not incurred during the one-day period of non-compliance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion seeking specified disclosure related to property sales and enforcement of prior non-dissipation orders against the respondent husband.

The wife alleged the husband was dissipating assets and restructuring corporations to move funds out of the court's reach, including the sale of Trehaven Golf without her consent and potentially below market value.

The court found the husband in breach of existing non-dissipation and disclosure orders, noting a pattern of unacceptable conduct.

The court granted the temporary order in accordance with the wife's motion and awarded her $7,500 in costs, emphasizing that the motion was necessary due to the respondent's non-compliance.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary spousal support, retroactive lump sum support, and disclosure from the respondent husband.

The husband denied entitlement, claiming low income and that significant assets belonged to his father.

The court imputed the husband's annual income at $550,000 due to contradictory statements and non-disclosure, finding the wife entitled to support.

The court ordered the husband to pay $20,000 per month in spousal support, retroactive to March 1, 2023, and to provide outstanding financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which his pleadings could be struck.

The wife's request for the husband to renew the mortgage and pay insurance on the matrimonial home was denied.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the wife due to the husband's unreasonable conduct.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation arising from the sale of a restaurant.

The trial judge found the individual appellant knowingly misrepresented the amount of TMI rent to the respondents, entitling them to terminate the agreement and recover their deposit and expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions.

The court also rejected arguments that an entire agreement clause precluded the misrepresentation claim and upheld the award of punitive damages.

Following a family law trial where oral reasons were given, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant wife had unreasonably sought to deny the respondent husband access to their children, while the husband had engaged in financial nondisclosure and hid assets.

Furthermore, both parties had conducted their business and personal affairs in cash to evade income tax obligations.

Given the mutual misconduct, unreasonableness, and failure to make full disclosure, the court declined to award costs to either party.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to set aside their noting in default and a default judgment under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined the issue of costs.

Although the defendants had been successful on the motion, the court declined to award costs.

The court noted the defendants required an indulgence due to their default and had delayed significantly in bringing the motion.

The plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was found to be reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the defendants’ prolonged inaction.

The court concluded that fairness required no order as to costs.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a noting in default and default judgment arising from an action for repayment of a loan.

The court considered the factors articulated by the Court of Appeal governing motions to set aside default judgments, including promptness of the motion, explanation for the default, existence of an arguable defence, prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

Although the court found the motion was not brought promptly and one defendant failed to provide an explanation for the default, the defendants established an arguable defence on the merits regarding repayment of the loan.

The court concluded that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the default judgment, particularly given the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff and funds being held in trust sufficient to satisfy any eventual judgment.

The appellant appealed an order refusing an adjournment, after which the parties had entered into minutes of settlement.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not exercise her discretion unreasonably in refusing the adjournment.

The court declined to entertain the ineffective assistance claim because the appellant's trial lawyer was not put on notice, and the fresh evidence test was not met.