Marie-Eve Jean

The husband appealed a lower court decision that set aside two Quebec marriage contracts, which had stipulated separation as to property, thereby allowing the wife to pursue an equalization claim under Ontario's Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal, upholding the application judge's discretionary decision to set aside the contracts.

The basis for setting aside included the husband's failure to disclose significant assets (a $4 million inheritance) and the wife's lack of understanding of the contracts' nature and consequences, particularly regarding her entitlement to share in the income from inherited property, which is not automatically excluded from net family property under Ontario or Quebec law unless expressly stated by the testator/donor.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day focused hearing where the applicant was entirely successful in setting aside Quebec matrimonial instruments.

The applicant sought costs of over $400,000, while the respondent proposed approximately $184,000.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, awarded the applicant $200,000 in fees and $65,106.73 in disbursements.

The court noted that neither party's offer to settle contained a true element of compromise, as the underlying issue was binary, and found some of the applicant's claimed hours for general research and costs submissions to be excessive and disproportionate, despite the high stakes and complexity of proving foreign law.

The parties were married in 1987 and separated in 2015.

During the marriage, while living in Quebec, they signed two notarial instruments (in 1988 and 1990) adopting a 'separate as to property' regime and opting out of the Quebec family patrimony regime.

The applicant wife sought an equalization of net family property under the Ontario Family Law Act, arguing the Quebec instruments did not oust the Ontario equalization regime or, alternatively, should be set aside under s. 56(4) of the Act.

The court held that the Quebec instruments did not contain clear and cogent language addressing the relative economic positions of the parties upon marriage breakdown, and therefore did not oust the equalization provisions of the Act.

Alternatively, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the instruments under s. 56(4) because the respondent husband failed to disclose significant assets (his multi-million dollar inheritances) and the wife did not understand the nature and consequences of the contracts when she signed them.

The wife was permitted to proceed with her equalization claim.

The appellant, Gladys Segura, appealed the dismissal of her application to transfer her Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court of Justice and to add the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services (CCTTS) as defendants.

The original Small Claims action involved claims against Rogers Communications Inc. for alleged overcharges, improper service termination, and a phone exchange.

The application judge found that the appellant had not demonstrated that her claim could not be justly and fairly resolved in Small Claims Court, nor had she provided sufficient material facts to support higher damages, equitable relief, or claims against the proposed new defendants.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's decision, affirming the dismissal of the transfer application and the refusal to add new parties.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an application to transfer her Small Claims Court action against Rogers Communications Inc. to the Superior Court of Justice and to add the CRTC and CCTTS as defendants.

The plaintiff originally sought $1,858.83 for alleged overcharges and issues related to cellphone repairs and account termination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a transfer was necessary for a just and fair resolution of her claim, as her monetary claim was well within the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction and she failed to provide a proposed statement of claim outlining any equitable relief or viable causes of action against the proposed defendants.