Michael Robert Kril-Mascarin

The applicant, Stephen Beech, sought a retroactive downward adjustment of child support, arguing a material change in circumstances due to job losses and career changes.

The respondent, Beata Beech, opposed, asserting Stephen was intentionally underemployed and that the separation agreement's imputed income of $100,000 should remain.

The court found a material change in circumstances but also determined Stephen was intentionally underemployed at various times.

The court imputed an income of $85,000 per year for child support from January 1, 2015, and adjusted support for other periods, granting Stephen a credit for overpayment but requiring him to continue paying a minimum amount.

The applicant sought to force the sale of the jointly-owned home and claim 50% of the equity.

The respondent argued for a resulting trust, asserting the applicant's 50% title was solely for mortgage financing and that she should retain pre-2009 equity.

The court found an oral agreement that the respondent would retain pre-June 2009 equity, and the parties would share equally in equity accrued thereafter.

The court also found the applicant unjustly enriched by undisclosed business income and deceitful conduct, leading to a reduction in his share.

The sale of the home was ordered, with specific terms for distribution reflecting the pre-2009 equity, adjustments for the applicant's unjust enrichment, and his share of carrying costs and consumable expenses since separation.

This endorsement addresses three issues following earlier Reasons for Decision: the appointment of KSV Advisory as interim receiver, Deltro's request to reargue its position on repudiation of a Letter of Intent (LOI), and Deltro's request to introduce new affidavit evidence.

The court appointed KSV as receiver, finding no conflict of interest.

Deltro's motion to reargue the repudiation issue was dismissed based on the functus officio principle, as the argument was previously available and no miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.

Similarly, Deltro's motion to introduce new affidavit evidence was dismissed, as the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and did not meet the high threshold for reopening a case to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

An appeal concerning the calculation of a bonus payable to a subordinate debt and equity financing fund upon the sale of a borrower company.

The lower court determined the bonus at $242,552.79 based on net proceeds excluding $55.125 million in debt created through a pre-sale reorganization.

The appellate court reversed in part, holding that the $55.125 million should be included in the bonus calculation as it formed part of the proceeds of sale and was created in violation of the loan agreement's consent requirement.

The court upheld the lower court's rejection of arguments that the bonus contravened the criminal rate of interest, was unconscionable, or was ultra vires the lender's statutory mandate.

The bonus was recalculated at $793,800.48.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court order dismissing his dispute of the garnishment of his pension benefits paid through a Retirement Compensation Arrangement (RCA).

The appellant argued that his RCA was exempt from garnishment under the Pension Benefits Act and that garnishment should be limited to 50 percent under either the Wages Act or the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that RCAs are excluded from the definition of "pension plan" under the Pension Benefits Act and therefore receive no protection from garnishment.

The court also found that RCA payments do not constitute wages and that support-related garnishment restrictions do not apply to equalization payments.

The plaintiff, Flirty Girl Fitness Inc. (FGF), brought a summary judgment motion alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, conversion, and professional negligence against the defendants, including a co-founder sister, former corporate lawyers, and a new fitness company.

FGF claimed damages of $180,440.15 plus punitive damages.

The defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss all claims.

The court found that the co-founder sister, Krista Knee, acted in FGF's best interests to salvage the business by transferring assets to Hottie Body Boutique Inc. (HBB), which assumed FGF's significant debts and prepaid customer contracts.

The transaction was deemed fair and beneficial to FGF, despite some corporate governance irregularities and a minor breach of fiduciary duty by the sisters for not fully disclosing future personal ownership plans to passive shareholders, which caused no damage to FGF.

The court also found no breach of fiduciary duty or professional negligence by the corporate lawyer, David Epstein.

Consequently, the court dismissed FGF's action in its entirety, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Receiver sought a declaration that a claimant did not hold an equitable mortgage against a property and had no claim against two related companies.

The claimant asserted an equitable mortgage, arguing his investment was intended for a pooled mortgage on the property.

The court found no objective evidence of a common intention between the claimant and the company's president to secure the investment with a mortgage on the property.

The claimant's request for an equitable mortgage or an equitable lien was denied, as there was no evidence that the funds reached the property-owning company.

The Receiver's motion was granted.

The applicants sought declaratory relief to deny a bonus provision to the respondent, arguing it was criminal, unconscionable, or ultra vires.

The court found a bonus was owing but accepted the applicants' expert opinion on its quantum, significantly reducing the amount claimed by the respondent.

Both parties sought costs.

The court considered contractual full indemnity costs versus partial indemnity, noting the divided success and the absence of settlement offers.

Ultimately, the court ordered no costs, with each party bearing their own, and denied interest on the judgment.

The applicants sought a declaratory order that a bonus payment clause in a 2011 loan agreement with the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) was unenforceable, arguing it contravened section 347 of the Criminal Code, was unconscionable, or was ultra vires to BDC's statutory objects.

The court dismissed all these arguments, finding the interest rate was not criminal, the transaction was not unconscionable given the applicants' sophistication, and the bonus provision was within BDC's powers.

However, the court ruled on the calculation of "net proceeds" for the bonus, allowing deductions for certified indebtedness, income taxes, and accounting fees, significantly reducing the bonus amount payable to the respondent.