Mary F.A. Shushack

These supplementary reasons address procedural matters following a prior decision (2017 ONSC 3134).

The court was asked for written submissions regarding the form of judgment.

Following the respondent's death, the applicant requested an extension of time for submissions to allow the respondent's estate to become involved and for an order to continue the proceeding against the estate.

The court granted a 45-day extension for submissions and clarified that it was not seized of the matter for settling the final judgment, allowing another judge or the Registrar to complete it if the reconstituted parties agree.

The applicant sought spousal support, equalization of net family property (NFP), security for NFP, transfer of a life insurance policy, and a restraining order.

The respondent disputed spousal support liability and asset valuations.

The court granted a divorce, cancelled spousal support arrears and found an overpayment by the respondent, continued a restraining order against the respondent, and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $60,688.10 for NFP equalization after adjustments.

The parties were directed to provide submissions on the form of the final order for asset division.

The applicant, Pamella Poitras, brought an application against her stepchildren challenging the 2013 will of her deceased husband, Gilles Poitras, on grounds of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity.

She also sought dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court found that while suspicious circumstances existed regarding undue influence, the evidence did not establish coercion sufficient to set aside the will.

The court also found Gilles had testamentary capacity.

However, the court determined that Gilles had not made adequate provision for Pamella's proper support and awarded her a lump sum of $85,000 under the SLRA, in addition to her life estate in the matrimonial home and its contents.

The applicant sought costs following a motion for retroactive and ongoing spousal support, where the respondent brought a cross-motion for child support and extraordinary expenses.

Success was divided, and neither party's offer to settle was clearly superior.

However, the court found the applicant was sufficiently successful to warrant partial indemnity costs, having obtained a sizeable award for spousal support.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $5,500 plus HST.