Jonathan McKinnon

The parties separated in 2000 and have litigated child support and section 7 expenses extensively.

The respondent mother sought retroactive child support and section 7 expenses for the parties' two children dating back to 2002, including substantial post-secondary education costs.

The court found that the mother had incurred unreasonable expenses and failed to require the children to contribute to their own education.

The court imputed income to the mother due to underemployment and lifted the corporate veil to include the father's corporate retained earnings in his income, less a reasonable allowance for retirement savings.

The father was ordered to pay a calculated portion of the reasonable retroactive and ongoing expenses, resulting in divided success.

Following an earlier endorsement enforcing a settlement agreement for the purchase of shares, the court addressed costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The successful moving parties sought partial indemnity costs and opposed the respondent’s request for pre‑judgment interest on the settlement amount.

The court held that the settlement concerned an exchange of money for shares rather than payment of a debt, and therefore the rationale for pre‑judgment interest did not apply.

Because both sides had retained the benefit of their respective property—funds on one side and shares on the other—no interest award was warranted.

Costs were awarded to the successful moving parties.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement agreement reached in 2005 but never implemented.

The responding party, acting through a litigation guardian, argued the settlement should not be enforced because the party lacked mental capacity at the time and the agreement was unfair.

The court found insufficient evidence that the party was under a disability in 2005 and held that Rule 7.08 did not apply because no litigation guardian existed at the time of settlement.

The court also found no persuasive evidence that the settlement was substantively unfair, noting the involvement of legal and accounting advice during negotiations.

The settlement was enforced and an order issued implementing its terms.