Jason Kenneth Allan

This litigation concerns the Estate of Basile Sipidias.

The primary issue on this motion was whether the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement at a judicial mediation on January 17, 2023.

Evangeline Sipidias (a respondent and estate trustee) brought the motion to enforce the settlement, supported by Theodore Sipidias (the applicant).

Constantin Sipidias (another respondent and estate trustee) opposed, arguing no settlement was reached or that it was vitiated by misrepresentation regarding a joint bank account.

The court found that a settlement of essential terms was reached, as evidenced by the presiding judge's endorsements.

The alleged innocent misrepresentation regarding the joint bank account was deemed not material enough to rescind the settlement, given the small amount at stake relative to the total estate value and the long history of litigation.

The court also approved the settlement on behalf of George Sipidias, a beneficiary under legal disability, finding it to be in his best interest.

This decision addresses the quantification of costs following a successful trial for lump-sum spousal support.

The Applicant was entirely successful at trial, securing an order for the Respondent's share of matrimonial home proceeds as spousal support.

The court awarded the Applicant costs for the trial and a settlement conference, applying full recovery costs from the date of a favourable offer to settle and partial recovery costs prior to that.

Costs for one motion were denied due to insufficient documentation, and for another, they were denied because the Applicant improperly brought a long motion on a regular motions day.

The total costs awarded to the Applicant were $43,074, collectible as support.

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 settlement of the family proceeding at a trial management conference on minutes of settlement, the court determined the reserved issue of costs.

Applying the costs framework under the Family Law Rules, the court held that the party seeking costs was entitled to them despite settlement language limiting each party to their own costs for negotiation and preparation of the agreement.

The court found both sides had acted unreasonably by failing to make offers to settle earlier, but also found the responding party could have accepted the minutes before the deadline expired.

Costs were fixed in a reduced amount proportionate to the issues argued.

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.

In an estates dispute between co-executors, the court determined the issue of costs following prior litigation concerning the administration of the estate.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that one executor had been principally successful, though the result was somewhat mixed.

The court emphasized that estate litigation should not automatically result in costs being paid from the estate and that parties should ordinarily bear their own litigation costs unless the dispute was necessary to properly administer the estate.

Finding that this was not such a case, the court ordered costs payable personally by the losing parties.

Following a three-day family law trial, the court addressed costs where the applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and obtain increased spousal support.

The agreement was upheld, but the court ordered spousal support on terms differing from the agreement.

Both parties claimed overall success.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles of fairness, proportionality, and divided success, the court found the applicant partially successful.

Modest costs were awarded to reflect success on spousal support but failure on the claim to set aside the agreement.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement following a 26‑year marriage, alleging non‑disclosure, misrepresentation of property value, unconscionability, and undue influence under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court found both parties had similar information about the value of a jointly owned cottage and that there was no failure of financial disclosure, misrepresentation, or undue influence sufficient to invalidate the agreement.

The property division provisions were found to be broadly consistent with the statutory equalization regime and were upheld.

However, the spousal support provision providing $443 monthly for only 18 months failed to meet the objectives of the Divorce Act in a long‑term traditional marriage with ongoing caregiving responsibilities.

The court ordered ongoing spousal support consistent with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and required life insurance security while support remained payable.