Kimberly Bryna Stock

The respondent brought a motion seeking to enforce a consent arbitration award arising from minutes of settlement resolving family law disputes, including property and support.

The applicant sought enforcement with an added indemnity clause relating to potential tax liability arising from a pending tax appeal, or alternatively to vary or set aside the award under the Family Law Rules on the basis of mistake.

The court found the parties had failed to address a significant potential tax liability of approximately $485,000 in the settlement despite both being aware of the issue.

Applying principles of mutual and unilateral mistake, the court concluded the parties were at cross‑purposes and would not have agreed to the settlement had they understood the risk.

The arbitration award and settlement were therefore set aside and the litigation permitted to continue.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay substantial spousal and child support, equalization, and costs.

He challenged the trial judge's orders that pierced the corporate veil of his solely-owned companies to secure the amounts owed, and that made the costs and pre-judgment interest enforceable as spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the piercing of the corporate veil, finding it appropriate in family law cases where a spouse completely dominates a corporation and uses it to shield assets from support obligations.

The Court also upheld the enforcement of costs as spousal support under the Family Responsibility and Support Enforcement Act, but allowed the appeal in part to remove pre-judgment interest on the equalization payment from being enforceable as support.