Joost Kollewijn Heersche

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage against the defendant's property.

The court dismissed the motion because the plaintiffs' evidentiary record was deficient, missing vital information about the mortgage renewal, payment history, and notice of sale.

The defendant's cross-motion was also dismissed as it was brought without leave.

No costs were awarded because both parties submitted deficient materials, and the defendant cited a non-existent case.

The applicants sought an urgent injunction to prevent the closing of a commercial real estate transaction pursuant to a second mortgagee's power of sale, scheduled for the following day.

The court declined to schedule the urgent motion, finding that the urgency was self-induced as the notice of sale was served months prior.

The court also noted that the alleged irreparable harm was purely monetary and raised concerns that the proceeding should have been brought in the Central East Region where the property is located, rather than Toronto.

Following an appeal decision that recalculated child and spousal support, the parties made further written submissions on calculation corrections and costs.

The Court of Appeal accepted both parties' submissions to correct the child support calculations based on clarified living arrangements and section 7 expenses.

On the issue of costs, the court affirmed the trial judge's costs award of $22,000 to the respondent, finding that the respondent's pre-trial offer remained considerably more generous than the final result obtained by the appellant.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order terminating child and spousal support and requiring her to reimburse the respondent for overpayments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the termination of spousal support, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant had achieved self-sufficiency following an inheritance.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred by failing to increase spousal support for the period after child support ended, and made several calculation errors regarding child support overpayments.

The appeal was allowed in part, adjusting the amounts owed between the parties.

Former spouses disputed continued child and spousal support obligations after their adult daughters completed undergraduate degrees.

The court considered whether the children remained “children of the marriage” under the Divorce Act and how their employment income and educational pursuits affected support entitlement.

It held that child support does not automatically end after a first undergraduate degree, but must be assessed based on the children’s circumstances and means.

Child support for one daughter ended in 2011 and for the other in 2013, with partial reimbursement ordered for payments made thereafter.

Spousal support continued beyond the date asserted by the payor but terminated in 2013, with modest retroactive adjustments for underpayment.