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 of Appeal allowed the family-law appeal in part, holding the arbitrator erred by stepping down and terminating support on speculative future events, but also erred in the remedy.
Paragraph 14 of the December 1993 Separation Agreement expressly references Canada Pension Plans and, when read in context with the agreement’s comprehensive division of assets and parties’ intent to each keep their own pensions and contributions, manifests the required intention under s.55.2(3); the other statutory conditions for the spousal agreement exception are met, therefore the mandatory credit split must be reversed.
Source excerpt
The court held that "earned income" in the Separation Agreement includes legitimate business expense deductions (aligned with tax-year net income), accepted Ms. Ryan's claimed 2018 daycare deductions as reasonable and CRA-accepted, found her 2018 net earned income below $25,000, and therefore denied the proposed reduction of spousal support — spousal support remains $1,200/month; motion dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court found that paragraph 15(4)(b) of the separation agreement and the parties' subsequent conduct demonstrated an intention that the insurer payments be periodic spousal support; accordingly the $2,056.06 paid directly to Blue Cross for the former spouse's medical premiums qualified as deductible spousal support under s.60.1 and related provisions, and the appeal was allowed.
Source excerpt
The payments were not deductible as support amounts because the separation agreement explicitly terminated spousal support as of November 1, 2014 and expressly described the $200 payments as contributions to an investment, not maintenance; accordingly the payments did not meet the statutory definition of a support amount and, even if some payments were used for maintenance, they would not be receivable under the written agreement and thus fail the statutory criteria.
Source excerpt
The court denied compensatory spousal support but awarded non-compensatory support, finding the settlement left a major income imbalance and imputing income to the claimant.
The court held that Emily remained a child of the marriage until she graduated from university in May 2014, and dismissed the father's application.
The Court dismissed the appeal: the named beneficiary designation remained effective under the Insurance Act and constituted a juristic reason defeating unjust enrichment; there was insufficient evidence to rectify the designation or to show exceptional circumstances to impose a constructive trust; the attorney could not have validly changed the designation without breaching fiduciary duties; costs were awarded to the respondent at $7,500 inclusive.
Source excerpt
The court enforced a separation agreement clause requiring the parties to share education costs, holding that private school fees fell within that term.
The court declined to impute extra income, fixed child-support incomes, and found the plaintiff entitled to needs-based spousal support for two years.
Explore more
