2 total
Vexatious litigant order upheld; no conflict between Courts of Justice Act and Divorce Act variation provisions.
The appellant, who had a long history of unsuccessful litigation and significant spousal support arrears, appealed two orders.
The first order dismissed his application to vary spousal support and declared him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, requiring him to obtain leave before initiating further proceedings.
The second order dismissed his subsequent application for leave to vary support.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no conflict between s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act and s. 17 of the Divorce Act, and concluding that the vexatious proceedings order was appropriate given the appellant's abusive litigation conduct.
Appeal allowed in part to vary the start date of retroactive child and spousal support.
The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the calculation of his net family property and the order for retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed income.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the deduction of disposition costs from the Cyprus properties, finding the trial judge correctly addressed the issue reserved by the parties' consent.
The Court upheld the imputation of $50,000 in income due to the appellant's failure to make full financial disclosure and lack of medical evidence of disability.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by varying the start date for retroactive support from the date of separation to the date the Answer and Counterpetition was issued, reducing the arrears accordingly.
