William Douglas Ross Beamish

This appeal concerned a dispute between former spouses over an Ontario condominium property.

The appellant argued the respondent's claim was a statute-barred equalization claim under the Family Law Act, and that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or the matter was res judicata due to prior Saudi Arabian annulment proceedings.

The respondent asserted a resulting or constructive trust claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction as Saudi Arabian courts declined jurisdiction over foreign property and their annulment proceedings did not resolve property issues.

The court further held that the claim was a distinct equitable trust claim, not an equalization claim, and therefore the ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied, not the two-year period under the Family Law Act.

The appeal and a motion for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The applicant wife sought interim spousal support and a non-dissipation order.

The parties consented to the non-dissipation order.

The court addressed interim spousal support, considering the husband's high income ($2.09 million/year) and the wife's imputed income ($30,000/year) after a 15.5-year relationship.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) principles for high-income earners, noting the SSAG ceiling is not a hard cap.

Considering the non-compensatory nature of the support, the substantial equalization payments already made and anticipated, and the parties' relative budgets, the court ordered the husband to pay $30,000 per month in temporary spousal support, a 50% increase from previous consensual payments.

The issue of retroactive support was deferred to trial.

A costs decision arising from a motion to change child and spousal support provisions in a separation agreement.

The parties settled all substantive issues by minutes of settlement dated April 13, 2017, but disputed costs.

The applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $22,096.13, claiming the respondent acted unreasonably.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $12,091, claiming the applicant's unreasonable conduct increased legal expenses.

The court found the applicant acted unreasonably by insisting on immediate support adjustments based on speculative income projections before year-end disclosure was available, and by failing to address the respondent's requests for adjustment of 2015 child support.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $9,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.