Jason K. Allan

The plaintiffs and defendant entered into an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to close, claiming she could not obtain financing because she was unable to sell her existing home following a provincial government policy announcement that cooled the real estate market.

The defendant argued the contract was frustrated or contained an implied financing condition.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that a market decline is not an unforeseeable supervening event that radically changes the contractual obligation, and the entire agreement clause precluded any implied terms.

The plaintiffs were awarded $623,733.05 in damages for the difference in resale price and carrying costs.

The applicant sought lump sum spousal support following the breakdown of a long-term marriage during which the parties operated a business together.

The respondent husband continued to operate the business post-separation, failed to provide financial disclosure, improperly deducted personal expenses from his business income, and obstructed the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed an additional $75,000 in income to the respondent and found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory support.

Given the respondent's litigation conduct, failure to disclose, and stated refusal to pay periodic support, the court ordered lump sum spousal support equal to the respondent's entire net equity in the matrimonial home.

Following a two‑day family law trial dealing primarily with retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support and income imputation, the court addressed costs.

The court reviewed the parties’ competing offers to settle under the Family Law Rules and determined that the respondent at trial had been largely successful because her offers were closer to the ultimate support outcome and she sought spousal support where the other party had offered none.

Allegations of unreasonable conduct were raised by both sides but the court found neither party’s conduct sufficient to disentitle costs.

In assessing quantum, the court excluded costs for conferences where costs were not reserved and reduced excessive preparation time claimed for trial.

Partial recovery costs of $18,000 were awarded.

Following a marriage breakdown involving a self‑employed lawn irrigation contractor, the court addressed disputed income, child support, spousal support, and a parenting travel request.

The parties accused each other of manipulating or concealing income during and after the marriage.

The court found deficiencies in financial disclosure and applied the Child Support Guidelines to impute income to both parties, rejecting some claimed business deductions and attributing additional income including cash components.

Support obligations were recalculated retroactively and prospectively, with arrears fixed and ongoing differential child and spousal support ordered.

The court also permitted the child to travel unaccompanied to Poland for a month to visit the applicant’s family, finding the trip in the child’s best interests.