3 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's spousal support quantum and costs award.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Susan Hutchison’s appeal from an order requiring her to pay spousal support to Matthew Bosrock and her application for leave to appeal the trial judge’s costs award.
The court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of income, consideration of mortgage repayments, or imputation of income.
The court also upheld the costs award, finding that the trial judge properly considered the divided success at trial and the time spent on the main issues.
The court dismissed the applicant's property rectification claim but awarded him non-compensatory spousal support after finding the parties cohabited.
This trial addressed two issues following an unmarried couple's separation: the Applicant's claim for equitable rectification of a contract concerning his equity interest in a jointly-owned home, and his entitlement to spousal support.
The court dismissed the rectification claim, finding no common intention to grant the Applicant an equity interest beyond the return of his mortgage payments.
However, the court found the parties cohabited from August 2014 to February 2022, establishing the Applicant as a "spouse" under the Family Law Act.
Consequently, the court granted the Applicant non-compensatory spousal support of $10,912 per month for 66 months, retroactive to March 1, 2022.
Condo not a matrimonial home; inherited investment funds excluded from equalization.
A family law trial concerning equalization of net family property following the separation of spouses.
The applicant, acting as executor of the deceased husband’s estate, sought inclusion of a Toronto condominium and certain financial accounts in the respondent wife’s net family property.
The court addressed whether the condominium qualified as a matrimonial home under s. 18 of the Family Law Act and whether inherited funds held in investment accounts were excluded property under s. 4(2).
The court held the condominium was not ordinarily occupied as a family residence and therefore was not a matrimonial home.
The court also found the investment account funds were traceable to an inheritance and were excluded property, while certain credit union accounts were included in the wife’s net family property.