Malcolm Kenneth Douglas

The applicant sought an increase in spousal support and leave to amend her application to include a claim for an Islamic Marriage Contract (MEHR).

The respondent sought a reduction in spousal support and production of documents.

The court granted mutual disclosure orders, permitted the applicant to amend her claim for MEHR, and increased spousal support from $1,000 to $1,500 per month, retroactive to October 1, 2015.

The court declined to deviate from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) range despite the respondent's debt, finding that an award at the low end of the range could accommodate the circumstances.

On a motion to change, the court recalculated child support following multiple shifts in the children's primary residence and longstanding non-compliance with annual income disclosure obligations.

The moving party father failed to establish that he had properly disclosed his income and was found to have knowingly withheld increased support despite significant income increases.

Retroactive support was ordered back to June 1, 2009, with detailed adjustments tied to changing parenting arrangements and the parties' annual incomes.

The court also imputed additional income to the responding mother from a tax-free lump sum spousal support settlement, fixed the father's 2014 income for guideline purposes after partially including a lodging allowance, varied section 7 sharing to 75/25 prospectively, and required a support deduction order.

This was a costs endorsement following a lengthy trial in which the plaintiffs obtained judgment for damages, interest, and declaratory relief in a corporate and fiduciary dispute.

The court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, together with the costs principles in Boucher, to determine a fair and reasonable costs award.

The plaintiffs' offers to settle were found to be more favourable than the result ultimately obtained, while the defendants' offers were not.

Given the length and complexity of the trial, the defendant's conduct, and the settlement history, substantial indemnity costs were awarded.

In a family law trial following separation, the court resolved parenting, matrimonial property, child support income, carrying costs, and occupation rent issues.

The court declined to increase the respondent’s weekday access, finding the requested change was not shown to be in the child’s best interests.

Interpreting a marriage contract dealing with unequal contributions to a replacement matrimonial home, the court held the parties should share the reduced sale proceeds proportionately rather than equally, awarding 38% to the applicant and 62% to the respondent.

The court also imputed child support income to the respondent at amounts exceeding some of his claimed earnings, limited the applicant’s liability for carrying costs to a specific tax-related amount, and denied occupation rent.

The plaintiffs and defendants, who are family members, entered into a business venture to purchase and manage an apartment building through a corporation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant managing the building breached his fiduciary duties by misappropriating corporate funds for personal use and to purchase other properties.

After a 40-day trial involving extensive forensic accounting evidence, the court found the defendant's evidence lacked credibility and determined he had misappropriated $592,671.43.

The court imposed a constructive trust on the properties purchased with the misappropriated funds and ordered the defendant removed as an officer, director, and shareholder of the corporation.

Following a prior family law decision resolving issues related to the division of a matrimonial home and pension, the court addressed the issues of costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The respondent had initiated proceedings to enforce compliance with an earlier order concerning pension valuation and transfer of the matrimonial home, while the applicant raised disputes regarding the valuation of her interest in the home and certain section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent successful on the pension issue and the applicant successful on most section 7 claims, while neither party prevailed on the principal issue concerning the value of the matrimonial home interest.

Given the mixed outcome and the absence of settlement offers engaging Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered that neither party receive costs.

The court also declined to award pre‑judgment interest, finding that any interest should be offset by the increase in the applicant’s equity resulting from the respondent’s post‑separation financial contributions to the home.

Post-separation family litigation concerning enforcement and variation of a prior settlement order addressing the matrimonial home and child-related expenses.

The court determined the buyout value of the applicant’s capped interest in the matrimonial home where the property had not been sold as previously ordered.

In calculating the buyout, the court applied deductions including notional real estate commission, notional legal fees, tax arrears, a joint line of credit, assessment costs, and property damage, while rejecting a claim for reimbursement of life insurance premiums embedded in mortgage payments.

The court also varied a prior order concerning section 7 expenses by increasing the annual cap on dance expenses due to a material change in circumstances, and ordered contribution toward a laptop purchase.

Additional relief regarding orthodontic expenses and life insurance compliance was declined.

The appellants appealed a final order dealing with the passing of accounts taken pursuant to powers of attorney.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence supported the motion judge's finding that the respondent wife had satisfactorily accounted to her husband during his lifetime for all transactions executed under the powers of attorney, and that the husband was entitled to and did bestow gifts on her.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,000.