Tetyana Ivanina

The appellant, Linda May Leith, brought a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a trial judgment concerning an equalization payment under the Family Law Act.

The respondent, Jason William Craig Leith, sought the sale of the testator’s assets as ordered by the trial judge, which Ms. Leith opposed, seeking a stay of sale.

The court granted the extension of time, finding a one-day delay was inadvertent and the appeal raised arguable issues with no prejudice.

The court also granted a stay of the sale of remaining estate assets, finding a serious issue regarding the valuation date for the equalization payment, irreparable harm to the appellant if forced to leave her home, and the balance of convenience favoring the appellant.

Costs were awarded to the appellant.

The applicant surviving spouse elected to receive an equalization payment from her deceased husband's estate rather than taking under his will.

She brought a motion seeking to apply her equalization payment towards the purchase of the matrimonial home, which was owned by the estate and specifically bequeathed to one of the deceased's sons.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a vesting order was not appropriate as there was no concern the estate would fail to pay the equalization amount once its properties were sold.

The court ordered all estate properties to be sold to determine the exact equalization payment, with the remaining net proceeds to be divided among the children on a prorated basis according to the sale prices of their specifically bequeathed properties.

This appeal concerns a failed real estate transaction where both parties mistakenly believed the property was subject to a prescriptive easement.

The purchaser, Roalno Inc., refused to close without a price abatement or extinguishment of the supposed easement.

The vendors refused these terms.

Roalno sued for specific performance with an abatement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding Roalno breached the agreement by refusing to close.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, concluding that Roalno had anticipatorily breached the contract by demanding new terms based on a legally erroneous belief, and that the vendors had accepted this repudiation, thereby ending the contract.

The court also clarified that statutory rights under the Road Access Act do not constitute an easement or right-of-way under the agreement's warranties.

This application concerned a dispute over the purchase of a "Farm Property" from an estate.

The applicant sought authorization to purchase the property, while one respondent claimed a first option to purchase under the deceased's will.

The court analyzed the will's provision for "express written notice" to trigger the 30-day option period and whether the respondent had effectively waived his entitlement.

The court concluded that the respondent had properly exercised his option, as the conditions for triggering the option period were not met until a later date, and no effective waiver occurred.