Kori Levitt

The appellant sought to overturn a trial judge's decision, arguing an error in failing to incorporate a rectification analysis and a finding that the appellant did not misunderstand the marriage contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the contract, thereby precluding any remedy in rectification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change his child and spousal support obligations following a 2018 trial decision.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the children entering and exiting post-secondary studies in the United States.

The court determined the appropriate section 7 expenses, calculated the respondent's income using a pre-tax corporate income approach, and continued to impute $50,000 in income to the applicant.

The court declined to adjust the spousal support payable to account for the fact that the applicant, having relocated to the United States, no longer paid tax on spousal support, finding the respondent was no worse off and the applicant remained entitled to high-end support.

The applicant sought a divorce and judgment in accordance with a marriage contract signed in 1991.

The respondent husband sought to set aside the marriage contract, claiming inadequate financial disclosure, lack of understanding, duress, and unconscionability, or alternatively, rectification of a unilateral mistake regarding his entitlement to the matrimonial home's increased value.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding he was aware of the applicant's assets, received independent legal advice, and faced no duress or exploitation.

The marriage contract was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay $85,000 in costs.

The Applicant and Respondent, parents of one child, underwent a lengthy trial concerning custody, parenting time, child support, and property equalization.

The court granted sole custody to the Respondent, establishing a detailed parenting schedule.

It imputed income to the Applicant for child support purposes and ordered retroactive child support.

The Respondent's claim for an unequal division of net family property was denied, and she was ordered to pay an equalization payment to the Applicant.