Stephen M. Grant

The appellant sought to set aside a separation agreement executed four years earlier under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act on the basis that the respondent failed to disclose significant assets.

The trial judge found that while the respondent had indeed failed to disclose certain family business interests, shareholder loan payments, and capital income from share sales, these assets were not "significant" within the meaning of section 56(4) in the context of the settlement negotiations.

The trial judge determined that the non-disclosed assets had no bearing on equalization and were irrelevant to support, as the parties had agreed to support based on an income figure substantially higher than the respondent's actual income at the time of separation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the application.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that granted partial summary judgment in favour of the respondent on the issue of non-disclosure of the appellant Neil's interest in a family trust established by his father Solomon.

The motion judge found that Neil had deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust to Randi when they entered into a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the trust indenture had been disclosed to Randi's counsel and financial advisors, and that Randi was deemed to have knowledge of Neil's interest through her counsel.

The court held that Neil's omission from his financial statements could not transform actual disclosure into non-disclosure under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court also found that even if there had been non-disclosure, the asset was not significant as it constituted excluded property under the Family Law Act.

The claims for conspiracy to commit fraud, deceit, and punitive damages against Solomon were also dismissed as they could not be sustained on the evidence.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to change spousal support.

The parties had been married for 21 years and reached a consent order in 2012 providing for $12,000 per month in spousal support plus 27% of incentive employment income.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to change, finding that while the respondent's income had increased, no additional compensatory support was warranted.

The appellant argued the motion judge misunderstood the principles of compensatory support under Moge v. Moge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no legal error, error in principle, or significant misapprehension of evidence.

The applicant sought to adjourn the scheduled trial date in a complex family law and trust proceeding.

The respondent opposed the adjournment.

The court found that the trial date had to be vacated because the parties were not ready, there had been no meaningful settlement conference, and updated financial statements had not been provided.

The court vacated the trial date and scheduled a case conference to set a new timetable and trial date.

The respondents (former husband and his father) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's (former wife's) claim that a Separation Agreement should be set aside due to material misrepresentation and non-disclosure regarding the former husband's beneficial interest in a family trust.

The applicant opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for a preservation order.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the materiality of the non-disclosure.

The court also granted partial summary judgment in favour of the applicant, finding that the former husband deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust and that the former wife did not have actual knowledge of this non-disclosure.

The cross-motion for a preservation order was dismissed.

The remaining issue for trial is the materiality of the non-disclosure and the appropriate remedy.

The applicant sought an order to permit her to register her child, Kalle, in the National Ballet School (NBS) for the 2016/2017 year.

The respondent opposed this motion, arguing that Kalle's weekend classes would interfere with his limited access time with both children.

The court considered the child's best interests and the "maximum contact principle," finding insufficient evidence that Kalle's participation in the NBS Associates Program, which is not the professional program, should override the respondent's access time.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion seeking temporary and permanent leave to relocate with the children from the Region of Waterloo to the City of Oakville in the Region of Halton, and to change their school.

The applicant (father) brought a cross-motion to dismiss the relocation request and sought expanded access.

The court granted the respondent's motion for relocation, finding it to be in the children's best interests, considering the mother's role as primary caregiver, her support network in Oakville, and the minimal impact on the father's access.

The court also adjusted the parenting schedule, increasing the father's access time on alternate weekends.

The applicant sought a non-dissipation and preservation order under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act to restrain the respondent from dealing with assets, particularly shares in his private corporations, pending trial.

The court considered the strength of the applicant's case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.

While the applicant had an unassailable claim for spousal support and an arguable case for an equalization payment, the court found no risk of dissipation by the respondent, who had complied with temporary support orders and demonstrated efforts to grow his business.

Granting the order would severely cripple the respondent's companies, causing irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay agreed-upon costs, to be set off against future payments.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion where the respondent was found to have inappropriately moved assets and failed to fulfill disclosure obligations.

The court declined to award enhanced costs based on the applicant's late offer to settle.

However, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct in failing to make timely disclosure and attempting to shield assets from the proceeding.

Costs were fixed at $58,000.