Ross C. McLean

The appellant appealed a trial judgment concerning spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The appellant achieved partial success on appeal by increasing spousal and child support and eliminating a termination date for spousal support imposed by the trial judge.

However, the appellant was unsuccessful in overturning the trial judge's conclusions regarding equalization of net family property, which was a matter of substantial financial significance.

The Court of Appeal varied the trial judge's costs award from $10,000 to $7,000 in favour of the respondent and ordered each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment in matrimonial proceedings, challenging the trial judge's findings on unjust enrichment, the exclusion of a farm as a gift, retroactive child support, spousal support duration, and post-separation obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the farm was a gift and that unjust enrichment was limited to the bungalow.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred by imposing a strict three-year limit on retroactive child support under D.B.S., extending it back to the date of formal notice.

The Court also found the trial judge erred by arbitrarily terminating spousal support after five years, removing the termination date and increasing the quantum in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing the terms of a settlement reached during mediation.

The appellant argued that he wanted to seek a second opinion before finalizing the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that a binding settlement had been reached while the appellant was represented by counsel.

The appellants own a property with a registered right of way over the respondents' lands to the edge of Chesley Lake.

The appellants built a pole dock on the lakebed at the water's edge where the right of way ends.

The respondents sued, arguing that using the right of way to access the dock was beyond the scope of the easement.

The trial judge agreed, finding the easement was limited to agricultural purposes and that accessing the dock was an overburdening use.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the grant of the right of way was not confined to a particular use and that accessing the dock from the shoreline did not constitute an overburdening use of the right of way.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for adverse possession over a 2.6-foot strip of land on the respondents' property.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in his factual findings and in applying the test for adverse possession, specifically regarding mutual mistake and the requirement to exclude the true owner.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and confirming that effective exclusion of the true owner throughout the 10-year period remains a requirement for adverse possession, even in cases of mutual mistake.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to conduct the exercise prescribed in a previous order.

As the Court of Appeal could not make the requisite determination on the material before it, the appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.