Ross Thomson

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for $120,000 owing on a promissory note signed in connection with the defendant's purchase of a family restaurant business.

The defendant argued the note was unenforceable due to undue influence, lack of consideration, and mistake, and counterclaimed for the return of payments already made.

The court found the defendant's evidence unreliable and accepted the plaintiffs' evidence that the note represented the assumption of an antecedent debt owed by the previous owner.

The court held there was no undue influence, valuable consideration existed, and there was no mistake.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $120,000 plus prejudgment interest, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to change a divorce judgment that required payment of a global indexed amount covering both child and spousal support.

The motion sought termination of support for an independent adult child, adjustment of ongoing child support for the remaining child, termination of spousal support based on remarriage, and elimination of arrears.

The court found material changes in circumstances but declined to terminate spousal support, holding that the original agreement contemplated indefinite support indexed for inflation.

Retroactive adjustments were assessed using the principles from D.B.S. v. S.R.G., and the court declined to impose large retroactive child support or spousal support obligations due to delay, lack of misconduct, and the payor’s reliance on the existing order.

The court fixed arrears of spousal and child support at zero, set ongoing indexed spousal support, and established a structured regime for child support and post-secondary education expenses.