Monique Rae Bennett

The applicant moved for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules to enforce a handwritten settlement agreement signed by the parties.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to set aside the agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, arguing that his severe medical conditions and medications impaired his capacity to understand the agreement.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for summary judgment, finding that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed.

The court held that the expanded fact-finding powers available under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, and even if they did, the conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's capacity required a full trial to achieve a full appreciation of the issues.

Following the parties’ divorce after a lengthy marriage, the court determined outstanding corollary relief issues including equalization of net family property, retroactive and ongoing child support, spousal support, and post‑secondary education expenses.

Numerous disputes arose regarding valuation of assets, alleged undisclosed property, rental income, and the payor spouse’s income for support purposes.

The court rejected several claims of hidden assets and imputed income in certain years where financial disclosure was unreliable.

Equalization was recalculated with various adjustments, and retroactive child support was ordered based on actual annual income including capital gains for child support purposes but not for spousal support.

Ongoing spousal support was reduced after the recipient spouse’s remarriage and imputed earning capacity.