Patrick D. Schmidt

The parties built a new matrimonial home on property owned by the appellant prior to the marriage.

The cost of construction significantly exceeded the market value of the property, leaving it subject to substantial debt.

The trial judge declared the respondent a fifty percent equitable owner based on resulting trust principles and ordered the appellant to pay $160,000 if he remained in the home, explicitly departing from the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in failing to follow the statutory equalization process.

Under the Family Law Act, the appellant's net family property was zero, meaning no equalization payment was owed.

The respondent's cross-appeal for unjust enrichment was dismissed as the appellant was not enriched.

Following a successful appeal that set aside a trial judgment awarding spousal support to the respondent wife, the appellant husband sought trial costs of over $250,000 and appeal costs of nearly $50,000.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs to the husband despite his success and his offers to settle.

The court found that the costs sought were grossly excessive and that a costs award would have a devastating effect on the impecunious wife, destroying any chance she had to achieve financial self-sufficiency.

The court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The wife brought a motion to dismiss her husband's appeal of a divorce judgment on the basis that he had failed to pay monthly spousal support since the appeal was heard.

The husband argued his income had declined and his capacity to pay had eroded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion without costs, noting that there were important issues to be decided in the appeal and that the court was releasing its judgment on the main appeal concurrently.

The parties executed a separation agreement containing an explicit release of spousal support and a provision for recalculating child support if the husband's income materially increased.

Years later, the wife sought spousal support after the husband's income increased significantly.

The trial judge implied a term requiring the husband to disclose income increases, linked it to the spousal support release, and awarded retroactive and future spousal support.

The Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal, holding that a term cannot be implied if it contradicts an express term of the agreement.

The implied obligation to disclose income for spousal support purposes contradicted the express release of spousal support.

The appellant executor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $75,000 in dependant's support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The trial judge found the respondent was a 'spouse' who had continuously cohabited with the deceased for at least three years prior to his death, and that her evidence was sufficiently corroborated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding cohabitation or the quantum of support awarded.

The appellant appealed an order that struck her claim based on issue estoppel arising from a prior solicitor's assessment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessment officer made no finding on the question of negligence, either explicitly or implicitly.

Therefore, issue estoppel did not preclude the appellant from alleging negligence or breach of contract in her subsequent action against the respondent solicitor.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, except for the portion seeking to strike the jury notice, which was remitted to the Superior Court on consent.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's costs order in a family law proceeding regarding custody.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in upholding a previous judge's costs order that had been implicitly set aside, and in awarding an amount substantially in excess of party and party costs.

However, the Court noted that the respondent had made a reasonable settlement proposal regarding custody which the appellant rejected, justifying some costs to the respondent.

The Court granted leave to appeal costs, varied the trial judge's costs order to $4,000, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The parties divorced in 1990 and the appellant was ordered to pay spousal support.

The appellant later purchased two joint-survivor annuity contracts designating the respondent as the beneficiary, moved to Mexico, and stopped paying support.

The respondent applied to enforce the support order against the annuity payments.

The appellant argued that sections 196(1) and 196(2) of the Insurance Act barred the claims.

The Court of Appeal held that section 196(1) exempts all annuity payments from creditors' claims where a beneficiary is designated, allowing the appeal in part.

However, the Court upheld the finding that a former spouse is not a 'spouse' under section 196(2), meaning that section did not protect the appellant's interest in the contracts.