Paul Ledroit

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finalizing equalization payments and property division in a matrimonial case that followed the appellant's conviction for first-degree murder of his wife.

The motion judge ordered the appellant to pay the Estate $410,000 plus interest, with payment secured through a vesting order on property, vesting of bank account funds for child support, and transfer of 50% of the appellant's pension to the Estate.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: lack of procedural fairness, reliance on a settlement conference statement, unequal equalization payment, and failure to adjust child support.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, no error in relying on the sworn Net Family Property statement, and that the unequal division was discretionary and justified given the circumstances.

An applicant mother sought a declaration of true ownership of a family cottage, asserting a purchase money resulting trust, against her daughter, the registered owner.

The court examined the transferor's intent at the time of purchase, considering tax planning advice and the registration of a mortgage.

It found that the parents intended for the daughter to be the beneficial owner, primarily to avoid capital gains and protect the asset from future creditors or matrimonial claims involving the daughter.

The application was dismissed, affirming the daughter's ownership, though her liability under the original mortgage was maintained, while a later increased mortgage without consideration was deemed not to reflect indebtedness.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for specific performance regarding a commercial property, the defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff's motion was denied because it failed to disclose the purchase of an adequate replacement property.

The court found the plaintiff's non-disclosure inappropriate and awarded costs to the defendant on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reduced the defendant's counsel's hourly rate from $700 to $350, fixing total costs at $32,238.35.

A property developer sued a municipal fire department and its officials alleging negligence and misfeasance in public office after inspectors issued fire safety inspection orders requiring upgrades to fire alarm audibility levels in residential buildings.

The orders were based on an Office of the Fire Marshal guideline recommending a 60 dBA audibility level, though that standard was not prescribed by statute or regulation.

The plaintiff argued the inspectors exceeded their statutory authority under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act and enforced a non‑binding guideline as if it were law.

The court held the inspectors acted in good faith, relied on guidance from the Office of the Fire Marshal, and believed they had authority to address potential fire safety risks.

The plaintiff failed to prove deliberate unlawful conduct or knowledge of lack of authority required for misfeasance, and negligence was also not established.