Martins v. Martins

Martins v. Martins

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error: the trial judge correctly applied s.10.1(4) in context, made available credibility and factual findings that the respondent signed the waiver under duress and that the husband engaged in fraudulent conveyance, and therefore properly ordered the equalization payment and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 ONCA 532
Parties
Applicant (respondent): Maria Da Conceicao Afonso De Brito Martins; Respondent (appellant): Jose Maria Dias Martins; Respondent (appellant): Antonio Mario Martins
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Order of the Superior Court of Justice (trial Judge: Justice Erika Chozik)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pension Equalization, Spousal Support, Prejudgment Interest, Duress, Fraudulent Conveyance, Credibility Findings
Source Language
english
Family Law Equity Pension Equalization Spousal Support Prejudgment Interest Duress Fraudulent Conveyance Credibility Findings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Da Conceicao Afonso De Brito Martins

Applicant (respondent)

Jose Maria Dias Martins

Respondent (appellant)

Antonio Mario Martins

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Order of the Superior Court of Justice (trial Judge: Justice Erika Chozik)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in applying s.10.1(4) of the Family Law Act when ordering an immediate lump sum transfer from the husband’s pension
  2. 2 Whether the equalization payment ordered was fair
  3. 3 Whether prejudgment interest should run from date of separation or from a later date tied to discovery of the waiver

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error: the trial judge correctly applied s.10.1(4) in context, made available credibility and factual findings that the respondent signed the waiver under duress and that the husband engaged in fraudulent conveyance, and therefore properly ordered the equalization payment and prejudgment interest to run from the date of separation; the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondent awarded costs in the agreed all inclusive amount of $20,000 (CAD)