The appellant sought to overturn a motion judge's decision to amend prior court orders, arguing that an equalization payment of $280,000 was still owed despite a subsequent settlement agreement.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that the final settlement agreement, which divided funds from the matrimonial home sale, was intended to settle "all outstanding issues," including the equalization payment.
The court applied the "officious bystander test" and common sense to conclude that the equalization payment was implicitly offset by other amounts owed, dismissing the appeal.
