Lisa Brownstone

This case involved a dispute over the accuracy and enforceability of Minutes of Settlement concerning the equalization payment for two properties.

The applicant husband sought to enforce the Minutes as written, which stipulated a $520,000 payment from the respondent wife.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for rectification, arguing the amount was a mistake and should have been $260,000 (half the agreed difference in value).

The court found the Minutes ambiguous and that there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of the payment amount.

Consequently, the applicant's motion to enforce was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-motion for rectification was also dismissed due to a lack of a prior definite agreement.

The court set aside the disputed Minutes of Settlement and confirmed the validity of an earlier set of Minutes.

This trial decision addressed child support, income imputation, section 7 expenses, and costs.

The court found the applicant's financial disclosure deficient and imputed income to him based on significant non-taxable housing benefits received from his family's real estate business.

Retroactive child support was ordered from the child's birth.

The court also determined which section 7 expenses were extraordinary and how they should be shared between the parties.

Costs for the parenting order, which was settled prior to trial, were not awarded to either party.

The respondent wife sought summary judgment to dismiss the applicant husband's application to set aside a separation agreement.

The husband's application sought to set aside the agreement based on non-disclosure, lack of understanding, and unconscionability, and sought relief related to parenting, support, and property equalization.

The court dismissed most of the husband's claims, including setting aside the agreement from its inception, varying a prior parenting order, and property equalization (due to limitation period and lack of merit).

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the support provisions of the separation agreement resulted in unconscionable circumstances under s. 33(4) of the Family Law Act.

The husband failed to attend the motion despite multiple warnings.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and related relief.

The parties, married for over 28 years, presented conflicting narratives regarding the wife's financial contributions.

The court found the wife had a prima facie entitlement to support and imputed an income of $3,000 per month to her for a housing benefit received from her parents.

Based on the husband's average annual income of $586,333, the court ordered him to pay $19,839 per month in interim spousal support.

The issue of retroactive support was left for trial, and the wife was made responsible for the mortgage and line of credit on the Hillcrest Property, while the husband was ordered to pay joint Visa balances and maintain the wife on his health plan.

The applicant wife sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, with proceeds paid into court.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that an interim sale would prejudice his substantive rights under the Family Law Act or that the motion was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive.

The court found that the sale would not prejudice the husband's substantive rights, as his financial interests would be protected by payment into court, and a potential vesting order was too remote.

The court also determined the motion was not vexatious or malicious, noting the wife had sought the sale since 2019 and that it moved the parties closer to resolution.

The motion for sale was granted, with specific terms for listing and sale.