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.

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.