Stephen M. Grant

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay a $3.3 million equalization payment, retroactive child support, ongoing child support, and costs including a $150,000 premium.

The core issues involved whether a cottage owned by the husband's numbered company constituted a matrimonial home, the valuation of his business, and the appropriateness of the support and costs awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to pierce the corporate veil regarding the cottage and accepted the business valuation and support orders.

However, applying recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court allowed the appeal in part to set aside the $150,000 costs premium.

The respondent wife's cross-appeal seeking higher pre-judgment interest was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering him to pay $400,000 in lump sum spousal support to his former common-law partner.

During their nine-year relationship, the respondent supported the appellant financially and emotionally through severe depression and substance abuse, suffering economic detriment while enabling him to achieve significant financial success.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made unassailable findings of fact regarding the respondent's compensatory entitlement and need.

The court also upheld the lump sum format, distinguishing previous case law because the award would not cause the appellant hardship and the economic advantages and disadvantages could be accurately identified.

The appellant father appealed an order varying a trial judgment that had removed the child from the respondent mother's home.

The trial judge had transferred custody to the father due to the mother's unwarranted interference with his access rights.

The appeal judge found the trial judge erred in principle by focusing excessively on the mother's conduct rather than the best interests of the child, and varied the order to award joint custody while allowing the child to remain in his lifelong home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal, agreeing that the trial judge failed to consider the impact of removing the child from his residence and siblings.

Following the dismissal of the respondent husband's motion for leave to appeal, the petitioner wife sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the costs at $3,750, inclusive of disbursements and GST, noting that preparation time for a leave motion should bear a reasonable relationship to the counsel fee for the motion itself.

The husband brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim order for child and spousal support, arguing the order left him with less than 26% of joint family income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's decision.

The court noted that interim orders are intended to be temporary and that a motion to vary based on changed circumstances or proceeding to an early trial are preferable routes to seeking leave to appeal.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent wife $2,500 monthly in indeterminate compensatory spousal support, $35,000 in retroactive support, and child support based on a three-year income average.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the wife suffered permanent economic disadvantage by postponing her education to support the husband's university studies early in the marriage.

The Court held that the wife's current income did not negate her entitlement to long-term compensatory support to reflect the parties' former joint standard of living.

The appellant mother appealed an order that denied her request to seal the entire family law court file and instead only expunged certain information.

The mother, who comes from a wealthy family, argued that the entire file needed to be sealed to protect the child from the risk of kidnapping.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the best interests of the child required an exception to the open court principle under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was allowed and the entire file was ordered sealed.

The appellant husband appealed a family law judgment and sought to introduce fresh evidence to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.

The proposed evidence included the trial judge's personal divorce file and an affidavit from the appellant's trial counsel regarding out-of-court remarks made by the judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the threshold of relevancy and did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal on the merits regarding the trial judge's directions and determination of a retirement date was also dismissed.

The appeal concerned whether an Ontario court had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to make and later vary spousal support orders following a foreign divorce.

The court held that the 1990 consent order increasing spousal support was made without jurisdiction because only the court that granted the divorce could then grant corollary relief under s. 4, and the parties' consent could not cure that defect.

It further held that the 1998 variation order was also without jurisdiction because a null order cannot be varied and Canadian courts have no jurisdiction under the Act to vary foreign support orders.

The appeal was allowed, the variation order was set aside insofar as it related to spousal support, and no costs were awarded.

The appellant father, earning over $945,000 annually, appealed a child support order requiring him to pay the Table amount of $10,034 per month for his two children.

He argued that the Table amount was inappropriate under s. 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and that the word 'inappropriate' allowed for downward variation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'inappropriate' means 'unsuitable', granting courts discretion to increase or decrease Table amounts for high-income earners.

However, the Court found a presumption in favour of the Table amounts and concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused her discretion in awarding the Table amount in this case.

The appellant contractor bid on a railway siding project for the respondent.

Before bidding, the appellant received an inaccurate estimate of the rock excavation volume from the respondent's employee.

The construction contract contained a non-reliance clause stating the contractor did not rely on any information given by the respondent.

When the excavation required substantially more work, the appellant sued for breach of collateral warranty and negligent misrepresentation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the non-reliance clause precluded both the formation of a collateral warranty and the assumption of a duty of care necessary for negligent misrepresentation.