Wen Chin (Celia) Hu

The applicant brought a motion to enforce minutes of settlement resolving equalization and lump sum spousal support following a family law settlement conference.

The court held that non-compliance with the formal witnessing and signature requirements for domestic contracts under the Family Law Act did not preclude enforcement of an authorized litigation settlement reached through counsel.

Applying the objective settlement-formation inquiry, the court found a meeting of the minds, consensus on all essential terms, and no condition that the agreement depend on settlement of collateral issues.

The respondent failed to establish that enforcement of the lump sum spousal support term would be unconscionable, improvident, or unjust, particularly given the negotiated job-loss risk language and the respondent's continued affirmation of the settlement after anticipating an income reduction.

The motion was granted and the settlement terms were enforced.

The appellant challenged an order extending time for a late equalization claim and permitting a property ownership claim to continue.

The court held that the motion judge erred in treating repeated non-compliance with child support and disclosure orders as irrelevant when granting discretionary relief under the Family Law Act and Family Law Rules.

The court also held that the plain wording of the parties' divorce agreement barred claims to pre-marital property and that no proper expert evidence justified reading in a geographic limitation.

The extension order was set aside, the equalization claim was statute barred, and the ownership claim was dismissed.

On a family law disclosure motion, the moving party sought to strike the opposing party’s application for failure to comply with an order requiring disclosure concerning a disputed foreign property and bank accounts, and also sought release of trust funds.

The release-of-funds issue settled before the hearing, and the court addressed only the non-compliance remedy.

Applying the framework in Mullin v. Sherlock under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court found persistent non-compliance, but held that striking the entire application would be disproportionate and contrary to the children’s best interests because the disclosure issue related primarily to equalization.

The court struck only the equalization portion of the application, without prejudice to a future motion to reinstate if compliance is established, and awarded $3,500 in costs.

This decision concerns cross-motions by both parents, Weihai Xue and Yunzhe Lu, each seeking increased parenting time with their three children.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the parties’ May 2024 Minutes of Settlement, as the children were not adjusting well to the equal-time-sharing schedule and the parents were unable to cooperate effectively.

The court ordered a new alternating weekly schedule to reduce transitions and provide greater stability, and directed the parties to seek therapy for their eldest child and to communicate only through a co-parenting app.

Following a trial on the equalization of net family property, the parties were unable to agree on the final equalization payment and costs.

The court determined that the applicant owed the respondent an equalization payment of $639,398, rejecting her argument regarding a bank account balance based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party but noted both parties behaved unreasonably during the litigation.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $45,000 in costs.

The Applicant Wife and Respondent Husband sought equalization of net family property following their separation after 29 years of marriage.

The court addressed several contentious issues, including the treatment of a joint bank account, the classification and exclusion of properties (Gaomei and Gaoshi) as matrimonial homes or gifts/inheritances, the validity of claimed debts (Wife's debt to her mother, Husband's debt to his sister, and car loan), and the equalization of a family business.

The court made specific findings on each asset and liability, emphasizing the need for clear, convincing, and cogent evidence for deductions and exclusions, and the intention behind financial transfers from parents to adult children.

Following a nine-day family law trial involving property trust claims, equalization, and spousal support, both parties sought substantial or partial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the trial outcomes, noting that success was divided across the various complex issues.

Neither party's offers to settle met the conditions for full indemnity costs under the Family Law Rules, nor did they significantly alter the assessment of success.

Finding no unreasonable conduct by either side, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The parties separated after a short marriage.

The applicant claimed a 50 percent beneficial interest in three properties purchased in the respondent's name during the marriage, relying on resulting trust and unjust enrichment principles.

The court found the applicant had a 50 percent interest in one property (Front Street condo) based on a resulting trust, but dismissed the trust claims for the other two properties, finding that funds advanced by the respondent's parents were a gift to him alone, and funds advanced by a family friend were a loan to him alone.

The court ordered the respondent to repay loans to the applicant's parents, pay an equalization payment of $72,080.16, and pay lump-sum non-compensatory spousal support of $26,864.