Rajesan Rajendran

The applicant, Noel Paragua, sought to terminate his spousal support obligation to the respondent, Silva Lola, following his retirement, arguing it constituted a material change in circumstances.

He also sought extended terms for reimbursing a joint debt.

The respondent opposed, asserting the retirement was not involuntary and the applicant's income was not materially different.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to change, finding he failed to establish a material change in circumstances, particularly that his retirement was involuntary or that his income had materially decreased.

The court also rejected arguments for reducing the applicant's income due to "double-recovery" or imputing income to the respondent.

The applicant was ordered to reimburse the respondent for his share of a joint debt with specific payment terms.

Following a trial where the applicant's family law claims were dismissed, the respondent sought her costs on a substantial and full indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondent was the successful party and had made a settlement offer that she beat at trial, entitling her to costs under Rule 18(14).

However, due to credibility concerns regarding both parties, the court declined to award full indemnity costs.

The respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of her offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The applicant and respondent, former unmarried cohabitants, purchased a home together in 2001.

In 2002, the applicant transferred his 50% interest to the respondent.

After their relationship ended in 2013, the applicant sought a 50% interest in the property via resulting or constructive trust, or alternatively, damages for unjust enrichment based on his contributions to home renovations and the respondent's cleaning business.

The court dismissed all claims, finding the 2002 transfer was for valuable consideration, defeating the resulting trust claim.

The unjust enrichment claim failed because the applicant's room and board provided a juristic reason for his contributions, and he failed to prove the value of his labour or materials.

Claims for a joint family venture and conversion of personal property were also dismissed.