Steven Nagy

Following a long marriage, the respondent sought equalization and spousal support after separation.

The court considered whether the applicant’s interest in a large family trust formed part of net family property under the Family Law Act.

It held that the applicant had no present or contingent proprietary interest in the trust during the marriage and therefore its value was excluded from equalization.

However, the court found the applicant had substantial means and imputed income based on available corporate resources and earning capacity.

Significant spousal support was ordered to reflect the marital standard of living and the respondent’s economic disadvantage following the marriage.

The applicant mother sought sole custody or joint custody with primary residence of the parties' two children, as well as child and spousal support.

The respondent father sought sole custody or joint custody with primary residence remaining with him.

The court ordered joint custody, with primary residence of one child with the father and the other with the mother, and an equal time-sharing arrangement.

The court imputed an income of $20,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay $717 per month in child support based on a set-off, along with $455 per month in time-limited spousal support for two years.

The appellants appealed a damages assessment of $110,000 following a summary judgment finding them liable for breach of an asset purchase agreement and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The respondent cross-appealed, seeking repayment of salary, loss of future profits, punitive damages, and increased costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of damages and no basis to interfere with the costs award.