Ted R. Laan

In a family law trial regarding equalization, the respondent husband sought to exclude $219,000 from his net family property, claiming it was traceable to inheritances and gifts.

The court found the respondent failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to trace the funds into his shareholder loan or subsequent investment accounts.

The court also determined the date of marriage value of the respondent's 20% interest in the family business was zero, rejecting the respondent's proposed expert evidence due to lack of independence and insufficient data.

A divorce judgment was granted.

The appellant husband appealed a trial decision that dismissed his application to set aside a separation agreement and ordered him to pay spousal support, retroactive child support, and section 7 expenses.

The Court of Appeal found the spousal support award was appropriate, particularly given the husband's recent bankruptcy which would deprive the respondent wife of property-related costs and require her to assume joint debt.

The court also upheld the child support and section 7 expenses as they were provided for in the parties' separation agreement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision interpreting Minutes of Settlement in a family law dispute.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion, finding that the motion judge was entitled to look at the entirety of the circumstances given apparent inconsistencies in the language of the settlement and releases.

The Court agreed that further negotiations concerning the final equalization payment were limited to the ultimate disposition of a specific asset paid into court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding net family property and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that a domestic contract was no longer operative because a plan of subdivision was never registered, allowing the appellant's investment interest to be included in the net family property calculation.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge imputing corporate income to the appellant and awarding retroactive spousal support based on the financial evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages and costs award following a finding that they breached a three-year fixed-term employment contract with the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly quantified damages based on the contract rather than tort principles, and correctly accounted for the respondent's mitigation efforts.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's Sanderson order, which directed the unsuccessful corporate defendant to pay costs directly to the successful individual defendant.

The appellant client was awarded fixed costs in matrimonial proceedings.

Her solicitor claimed the fixed costs as its solicitor and client account, and the client applied to have the account assessed.

The motion judge ruled that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that neither issue estoppel nor abuse of process applied, as the solicitor and client are allied in interest when costs are fixed but opposed in interest on an assessment.

The appeal was allowed, permitting the client to have the accounts assessed.