The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent a 50% interest in a farm property based on resulting trust principles and ordering a lump sum child support payment.
The Court of Appeal upheld the property division, finding no error in the trial judge's application of resulting trust principles or rejection of the appellant's 'unclean hands' argument.
However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding child support, finding the trial judge erred by ordering a lump sum payment without sufficient evidence to calculate the amount under the Child Support Guidelines, including assumptions about post-secondary education.
The Court substituted an order for ongoing periodic child support of $345 per month and ordered $40,000 from the appellant's share of the farm sale proceeds to be paid into court or the Family Responsibility Office as security.
