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 Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over the parties’ separation date, holding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error and properly applied Kassabian.
The trial judge erred in law by treating part of the Richmond proceeds as family property because the appellant held no beneficial interest until sale (resulting trust presumption), which means the Mission Property net proceeds are excluded property; the judge also erred by deducting family mortgage debt from excluded property without s.96 analysis, by awarding retroactive spousal support without applying Kerr factors, and by making a palpable and overriding error in valuing certain chattels; the prospective spousal support determination and income finding were not disturbed.
Source excerpt
The court held that (1) relocation to Vernon by Ms. L is permitted and she will remain the primary caregiver because that arrangement best serves the children's stability and welfare given her primary caregiving role and available support; (2) a graduated parenting regime is ordered increasing Mr. L's unsupervised parenting time with specified transition periods; (3) on income the court accepted agreed imputations: Mr. L's income imputed to $192,370 (May-Dec 2024) and $239,130 (from Jan 1, 2025); Ms. L's income imputed to $65,000 up to Oct 1, 2025 and $75,000 thereafter; (4) child support and…
Source excerpt
Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a family law appeal, upholding equalization, imputed income and spousal support orders made on the respondent’s uncontradicted financial evidence.
The court found as a matter of fact that the parties did not live in a marriage‑like relationship for the requisite two years under s.3(1)(b) FLA, therefore dismissing the claimant's claims for spousal support and division of family property; the respondent is authorized to sell the jointly acquired vehicle (2021 Cadillac CT4) and to divide the sale proceeds as agreed, failing which a Registrar's hearing will determine division; the proceeds need not be placed in trust pending further order or appeal; propositions of case‑splitting are rejected and amendment of pleadings was properly authoriz…
Source excerpt
Claimant achieved substantial success on the key property and most debt allocation issues but not on spousal support; respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold for special costs; the trial was of ordinary difficulty so Scale C is not warranted; the eve-of-trial settlement offer was not one that ought reasonably to have been accepted, so double costs are not awarded; accordingly costs are awarded to the claimant at Scale B.
Source excerpt
The court ordered production of the requested corporate records to the extent they relate to the respondent because the records are trial relevant to property division and spousal support, are discoverable corporate records, and the burden of production is proportional; confidentiality measures protect privacy; an issue raised after the hearing (securities register) was not decided.
Source excerpt
Clause 33 applies to both the claimant's undisclosed Sun Life disability claim and the claimant's misrepresented Telus pension. The claimant is therefore deemed to own those assets equally with the respondent; respondent is entitled to one-half of the Sun Life settlement ($82,500) and one-half of the undisclosed portion of the Telus pension ($89,183.58) totaling $171,683.58, which is offset against the respondent's 2028 equalization payment, reducing it from $272,017.50 to $100,333.92 (interest to be recalculated accordingly). The court alternatively modifies the separation agreement under s.…
Source excerpt
Court found BC could exercise jurisdiction over parenting because the children were physically present in BC and substantial evidence was available, but declined jurisdiction over divorce, property and support in favour of Washington on forum non conveniens grounds (more ties, property law and evidence in Washington, risk of multiplicity and conflicting orders); accordingly BC proceedings on divorce, property and support were stayed while BC retained jurisdiction over parenting and ordered reunification counselling and staged contact.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was denied because appellants failed to identify any arguable question of principle that extends beyond the facts of this case; costs orders are highly discretionary and entitled to deference where the trial judge considered relevant factors, and no error of principle was shown that would warrant appellate intervention.
Source excerpt
Explore more
