Jeff J. Li

This appeal concerned the beneficial ownership of a residential property following the separation of common-law partners who had operated successful immigration businesses.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by isolating the property dispute from the parties' broader financial arrangements, including an agreed 60/40 profit split from their businesses.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that the respondent held a 50% beneficial interest in the property, noting the case was pleaded solely on that issue and the appellant had not advanced a counterclaim.

The appellant's motion to admit fresh evidence, alleging depression and anxiety to explain a failure to plead a claim, was dismissed for not meeting the Palmer test.

This decision addresses costs following a bifurcated trial where the applicant successfully challenged the validity of her 2017 divorce on grounds of lack of notice and improper date of separation.

While the applicant won this "battle" and beat her offer to settle, the court noted that her success on the date of separation issue (finding parties never lived together, thus separation date was marriage date in 2013) might lead to her equalization claim being barred by a different, six-year limitation period.

The judge fixed the amounts of costs for both parties (applicant on a substantial indemnity basis, respondent on a partial indemnity basis) but ordered them "in the cause," deferring the final award until the ultimate resolution of the main equalization application and the applicability of the second limitation period.

This case involved a trial of an issue to determine the validity of a 2017 default divorce judgment and the parties' separation date, which impacted the applicant's property claims.

The applicant, Ms. Sha, argued the divorce was invalid due to lack of service and a false separation date.

The respondent, Mr. Buchan, claimed it was a consensual divorce following a sham marriage for immigration purposes.

The court found both parties' evidence largely untruthful and inconsistent, making it difficult to ascertain the true facts.

However, the court concluded that Mr. Buchan failed to prove personal service of the divorce application on Ms. Sha.

While Ms. Sha failed to prove cohabitation, leading the court to conclude the parties separated on their marriage date (July 18, 2013), the divorce order was set aside due to lack of proper service, preventing the limitation period for property claims from running.

The applicant brought a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, where she also operated a home-based business.

She alleged the respondent was violent and disruptive to her practice.

The respondent denied the allegations and claimed a constructive trust interest in the home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the allegations of post-separation conduct did not rise to the level of violence under section 24(3) of the Family Law Act, and that the applicant's desire to use the home for business could not trump the respondent's right to use it as a residence.