Wen Chin (Celia) Hu

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.

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.