Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court found the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act, divided the gain on excluded property equally, and dismissed the tort claims.
The court found the parties were not spouses under the Family Law Act because their marriage-like relationship did not continue for two years.
The court dismissed a claim for spousal status under the Family Law Act, finding the parties never lived together in a marriage-like relationship for two continuous years and cancelling the CPL.
The court held the parties were not in a marriage-like relationship, or alternatively not for two years, so the claimant was not a spouse under the Family Law Act.
The court held the parties were not spouses under the Family Law Act because they did not live together for two continuous years and the relationship was not marriage-like.
The court dismissed a Family Law Act property claim, finding the parties had a long romantic relationship but not a marriage-like one under s. 3.
The court found the parties began living in a marriage-like relationship in February 1998, ordered equal division of family property and debt, and dismissed the spousal support claim.
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge made admissible credibility-based findings that the appellant had additional assets and there was a real risk he would not pay periodic support; given statutory discretion to award lump sum support and the relevant factors (ability to pay, risk of non-payment, need to effect a clean break), the trial judge did not err in principle nor reach a clearly wrong quantum, so the lump sum award of $135,000 was upheld.
Source excerpt
The court held that cohabitation with a new partner did not bar spousal support, imputed the husband’s income at $70,000, and ordered interim child and spousal support.
Entitlement to spousal support was established based on 31 months of cohabitation (Jan 1996–July 1998); the earlier seven‑year dating period did not constitute cohabitation but was relevant to duration because of ongoing financial support. Given facts, award limited to $2,000/month and mortgage payments until sale, terminating December 1, 2002; the Matrimonial Property Act does not apply to this couple on the facts and statutory regime as interpreted; unjust enrichment/constructive trust claims fail because transfers were gratuitous or offset by support and gifts; jointly titled Halifax prope…
Source excerpt
Explore more
