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 enforced a 2019 oral child-support agreement, fixed arrears at $16,600, set ongoing support at $1,031 monthly, and ordered disclosure and costs.
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge’s factual findings that the respondents had a September 2014 lending commitment and that the injunction delayed refinancing (causing increased interest costs and amendment fees), and his interpretation and application of the 2010 consent order to quantify expenditures, were not palpably and overridingly erroneous; therefore the awards and disallowances below were upheld and the respondents were awarded costs of the appeal.
Source excerpt
The court upheld a separation agreement, found the claimant kept the India property, rejected the respondent’s s. 93 FLA challenge, and confirmed the matrimonial home division.
The court dismissed a father's application for a views of the child report or child counsel, finding it was not in the child's best interests after his unilateral removal.
Because the appellant wilfully failed to comply with the Court of Appeal order requiring payment of the agreed equalization amount, provided no financial disclosure, and made no credible showing that payment would be made within a short further period, it was fair and just to stay the appeal and to grant the respondent leave to move to quash or dismiss the appeal for non‑compliance; costs for the motion were awarded to the respondent in a fixed amount of $5,000.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed the claimant’s spousal support application but enforced an earlier order dividing the ManuLife annuity and awarded her one-half plus interest.
The court refused relief from forfeiture and an extension of time, and enforced the petitioner’s option to buy out the respondent’s interest in the property.
The court held the action was properly characterized as a claim for monetary damages, not enforcement of the criminal disposition order, and the limitation period for damages accrued by March 2, 2013 at the latest; the action commenced November 4, 2015 was therefore statute-barred and summary judgment dismissal was correct.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed the respondent’s bid to reopen a family property order, found he obstructed sale of the Coquitlam property, awarded $20,000 damages, and ordered the parties to seek an Iranian divorce.
Where pension administrators and the Superintendent declined to effect a court-ordered division of pension assets and statutory wording in the Pension Benefits Act frustrated enforcement of entitlement under the Matrimonial Property Act, the court will protect the non-member spouse by declaring her proprietary interest in the transferred funds (33.54% of the LIRA) and by imposing trustee obligations on the plan member (Respondent) to preserve and enforce that interest, together with directions to administrators to provide information and facilitate enforcement; legislative clarification is re…
Source excerpt
Explore more
