M. Kenneth Douglas

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.