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 corrected a $4,250 arithmetic error in equalization, but otherwise dismissed the appeal on tracing, RESP treatment, matrimonial home, and costs issues.
The court applied Bakshi v. Hosseinzadeh to hold the Maher payment is properly included in net family property, found no evidentiary basis to order an unequal division given negligible respondent assets and lack of nondisclosure prejudice, and upheld the trial judge's practical exercise of discretion to deduct the Canadian equivalent of the 110 gold coins from the equalization payment; the procedural fairness complaint failed because the judge was not bound to accept an uncontested NFP calculation.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal error or palpable and overriding factual error in the trial judge's findings; the trial judge's discretionary choices (including refusal to net down a retroactive lump sum for tax reasons) were within her province and supported by the record, and the appellant did not request or provide the tax analysis required to justify a netting‑down adjustment.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings and valuations were reasonable and not palpably and overridingly erroneous, the challenged orders (no occupation rent, spousal support, allocation of car and pool liabilities) were supported by the evidence and legal principles, and the appellant's material non-disclosure of whole life insurance further undermines his challenges and supports finality of the trial judgment.
Source excerpt
The Family Agreement validly excluded the respondent's $45,000 deposit under s.4(2) of the Family Law Act, but the trial judge erred by also allowing that same $45,000 to be included in the respondent's marriage-date deduction for the Kroeger property; the same property cannot be both an exclusion and a marriage-date deduction, so the marriage-date deduction must be reduced by $45,000 and the equalization recalculated, resulting in a reduced equalization payment of $38,924.
Source excerpt
The court exercised its discretion to award proportionate costs to the respondent in the amount of $12,000.00 inclusive because the appellant achieved only minimal success on appeal, the appeal was heard in writing (reducing required attendance), and the appellant provided no proof of claimed COVID-19 financial impact; the costs award is payable within 30 days with post-judgment interest and is enforceable as a support order by the Family Responsibility Office.
Source excerpt
The Court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and discretionary imputation of income to the appellant based on inconsistent evidence and under-the-table payments; accordingly the imputed incomes, the support calculations and the costs award were reasonable and entitled to deference, subject only to two minor arithmetic corrections and an increase to the equalization payment as conceded by the respondent.
Source excerpt
The written Licence Agreement and attached demand mortgage, negotiated with counsel and unambiguous in form and terms, established a loan secured by a demand mortgage of $165,000 (not a gift), constituted a valid licence (not a lease), and precluded discounting the principal because the Agreement waived interest while the licensee occupied the granny suite; therefore the demand mortgage is enforceable and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judge's exercise of discretion: the trial judge reasonably discounted the $5,000,000 promissory note by 90% as reflecting the extremely unlikely prospect of repayment and did not pierce the corporate veil, and the award of indefinite spousal support was reasonable given the parties' ages, the long marriage and the respondent's health-related impaired earning capacity.
Source excerpt
The motion judge permissibly used expanded fact-finding on the summary judgment record, rejected the appellants' evidence that the transfers were loans based on lack of communication of loan terms, celebratory conduct inconsistent with a loan, and credibility findings, and there was no palpable and overriding error to justify appellate intervention; therefore the transfers were gifts and no monies were owing under the mortgage.
Source excerpt
Explore more
