William R. Clayton

Following the release of the main appeal reasons, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $11,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The parties were common law spouses who separated after 23 years.

The trial judge awarded the respondent lump sum spousal support of $135,000, finding that the appellant had hidden assets and there was a real risk he would not pay periodic support.

The appellant appealed, arguing that lump sum support should only be awarded in very unusual circumstances based on prior case law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, clarifying that the court's discretion to award lump sum support is not restricted to rare cases, and upheld the trial judge's decision based on the appellant's non-disclosure and the need for a clean break.

The appellant husband appealed a divorce judgment regarding property issues, specifically the trial judge's findings that he held shares and a shareholders' loan in trust for the respondent wife, and that the wife could trace her inheritance into those shares and an investment account to exclude them from her net family property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the presumption of resulting trust or her conclusion that the wife's inheritance could be traced into the corporate shares and investment account.

The parties entered into a pre-nuptial agreement one day before their wedding, agreeing to keep all real and personal property separate.

After a 17-year marriage, they separated and the wife successfully applied to set aside the contract at trial.

The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in setting aside the contract based on an improper application of the test for misrepresentation, the absence of support provisions, and the retrospective application of section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant mother sought an order in Ontario to supersede an Arizona custody order.

The motion judge declined to exercise discretion under s. 42 of the Children's Law Reform Act, focusing exclusively on the parties' prior agreement to return to the Arizona court for variations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider other material factors, including the children's interests and the factors in s. 42(1)(b).

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination on a full record.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement varying the lower court's judgment in accordance with a consent order filed by the parties.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred by including post-separation severance packages in the parties' net family property statements, as these did not exist at the date of separation.

The court dismissed the remaining grounds of appeal, including challenges to the valuation of a guaranteed debt, findings on early retirement, imputed income, and the denial of pre-judgment interest.

The equalization payment was reduced accordingly.

The appellant was receiving $350 per week in spousal support from her first husband's estate, which terminated when she remarried the respondent at age 56.

The second marriage lasted only one year.

The trial judge dismissed her claim for periodic spousal support, awarding only a $10,000 lump sum, emphasizing the short duration of the marriage and her knowledge that remarriage would terminate her prior support.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in principle by over-emphasizing the short marriage and the appellant's decision to remarry.

Applying the Divorce Act and the Moge framework, the court held the economic consequences of the marriage should be shared equally.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to pay $175 per week in spousal support until the appellant turns 65.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the quantum and duration of support payments.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, applying the standard of review from Hickey v. Hickey, and concluded that the facts did not warrant substituting its decision for that of the trial judge.