K. Nathens

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve multi-jurisdictional family litigation by consolidating their dispute into an alternative dispute resolution process in Ontario.

The day after signing, the moving party was served with a new defamation proceeding commenced by the responding party in Iran.

The moving party sought to set aside the Minutes of Settlement, arguing the new proceeding was a fundamental breach.

The court found that the responding party's failure to disclose and withdraw the defamation claim constituted a fundamental breach of an implied term to end all related litigation.

The court allowed the motion, set aside the Minutes of Settlement, but declined to award damages or address jurisdiction.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate spousal support and adjust child support to reflect a shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent mother sought to continue full table child support and significantly increase spousal support with no termination date.

The court found the mother was intentionally under-employed and imputed her income at $78,000.

The court ordered a set-off of child support under section 9 of the Guidelines and ordered spousal support to continue at the current quantum until August 31, 2021, at which time it will terminate.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 21-year common-law relationship.

The applicant sought a beneficial interest in several properties, spousal support, and priority over CRA liens, while the respondent sought retroactive child support.

The court found the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and awarded the applicant a 50% interest in two properties and a 33% interest in a third property purchased post-separation using joint funds.

The respondent's claim for retroactive child support was dismissed as the children were independent adults when the claim was made.

The court awarded the applicant retroactive and ongoing periodic spousal support, imputing income to both parties.

Finally, the court held that the applicant's constructive trust interest in the properties took priority over the CRA's subsequently registered tax liens.