Suzanne E. Deliscar

Following the breakdown of a 15-year cohabitation and 14-year marriage, the parties settled parenting issues but disputed financial matters.

After a nine-day trial, the trial judge made orders regarding equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and spousal and child support, but declined to order disposition of a cottage property on First Nation land.

The father appealed nearly all orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the father's lack of candor and dishonesty were entitled to deference, and that her decisions on equalization, support, and section 7 expenses were properly reasoned and supported by evidence.

The self-represented appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment on the basis of procedural unfairness.

At trial, the respondent was permitted to call witnesses despite failing to provide a witness list in advance.

The trial judge did not advise the appellants of their right to object or request an adjournment, nor did he explain that their Statement of Defence was not evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed in his duty to assist the self-represented litigants and compounded the unfairness by drawing an adverse inference from their failure to testify.

The applicant wife sought spousal support, a declaration that her deceased father-in-law's house was a matrimonial home, and a quantum meruit claim against his estate for caregiving services.

The court found the house was not a matrimonial home because the parties separated before the husband inherited it.

The quantum meruit claim was dismissed because the wife had secretly used the father-in-law's funds to support a severe gambling addiction, which more than compensated her.

Spousal support was ordered to continue for two years to allow the wife, who suffered from PTSD after a workplace robbery, to seek full-time employment.

The husband was found in contempt for failing to notify the wife's solicitor of a property sale and fined $2,500.

Following reasons determining a contract interpretation dispute regarding the price payable to repurchase property, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $32,000, while one opposing party proposed a $10,000 award and another argued that no costs should be ordered.

Applying the principles in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the jurisprudence emphasizing fairness and reasonableness, the court found the requested costs excessive given the number of lawyers involved and the volume of hours billed.

The court reduced the award and fixed costs at $15,000 payable by one applicant, noting that the other applicant had minimal involvement in the litigation.

The applicants sought a declaration that they could exercise a contractual option to repurchase real property for $400,000 after crediting an $800,000 vendor take‑back mortgage against a stated repurchase price of $1,200,000.

The respondent argued the mortgage clause required payment of the full $1,200,000 to reacquire the property, with the mortgage deemed satisfied upon payment.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and held the clause was unambiguous: exercising the option required payment of $1,200,000 without deduction for the outstanding mortgage.

Contextual evidence and surrounding circumstances did not alter the plain wording, and the contra proferentem rule was inapplicable because both parties participated in drafting the agreement.

The application was dismissed and the respondent’s cross‑application granted declaring that the option could only be exercised upon payment of $1,200,000 subject to normal real estate adjustments.