Sentences with phrase «appellant husband»

The application judge ordered that the children's primary residence be with the respondent wife, with generous access awarded to the appellant husband.

[As a result, the equalization payment owing to the appellant husband increased by $ 40,000.]

Costs of $ 15,000 ordered against the appellant husband.

The appellant husband had lost his motion to set aside minutes of settlement.

All of the appellant husband's arguments were summarily dismissed, with the ONCA noting that there were no errors with the trial judgment — the loan to the brother was not plausible, the bump up to the husband's income was in line with the husband's lifestyle and spousal support was on the low end in any event, and the vesting orders were available to the trial judge.

The appellant husband moved to lift a stay of his appeal that was imposed on November 1, 2010.

The respondent wife brought a motion asking the ONCA not to hear the appellant husband's appeal until he complied with the trial judge's order regarding the payment of spousal support and the posting of security for future spousal support payments.

Costs of the appeal of $ 35,000 were awarded against the appellant husband — one of the highest costs awards for a family law appeal so far this year.

The appellant husband previously brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal - FamilyWatch reported on the ONCA's dismissal of that motion in November 2015.

The trial judge had made a lump sum spousal support award of $ 35,000 in favour of the appellant husband.

In brief reasons, the ONCA adjourned the majority of the appellant husband's appeal to September 29, 2016 on condition that the appellant husband comply with the trial judge's order regarding spousal support.

Costs of the appeal of $ 35,000 ordered against the appellant husband.

This was a motion brought by the respondent wife to dismiss the appellant husband's appeal.

In Roberts, the appellant husband's pleadings were struck by the motions judge for failure to comply with orders requiring him to disclose financial information.

The Appellant husband's pleadings had been struck during the lower court proceedings due to his failure to pay a costs order of $ 2000.

In chambers, van Rensburg J.A. dismissed the appellant husband's motion, primarily on the basis that the «justice of the case» did not require an extension of time.

The self - represented appellant husband argued that the motion judge was biased, erred in finding no material change in circumstances, and erred in not making an adverse inference against the wife for non-disclosure.

The appellant husband argued that (1) the trial judge erred in how he ordered the equalization payment to be paid; and (2) this error led the trial judge to make a further error with respect to his costs award, as it resulted in the trial judge failing to properly assess the reasonableness of the appellant husband's offers to settle.

The ONCA allowed this ground of appeal, but rejected the appellant husband's costs argument, noting that there were many issues at trial and it was unclear that this error materially affected the trial judge's costs order.

The appellant husband appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default order that the matrimonial home be sold and that $ 400,000 be paid to the wife on account of equalization.

The appellant husband appealed the order of the motion judge striking his pleadings for failure to comply with court orders and allowing the wife to amend her application.

Not exact matches

[33] The appellant also argued that even if damages were recoverable for the respondent's diminished ability to care for her husband, as not too remote, as they were in Lynn, they would be recoverable under the heading of non-pecuniary damages and not as damages for loss of future care.

Shortly before the deceased died, the wife of the deceased (called as one of the witnesses) claimed that her deceased husband had informed her on his sick bed that it was the Appellant who attacked him with acid.

Tsige claimed that she was involved in a financial dispute with the appellant's former husband and accessed the accounts to confirm whether he was paying child support to the appellant.

The appellant wife appealed an order terminating the husband's obligation to pay spousal support and maintain her as a beneficiary of his life insurance past his retirement date of June 1, 2016 at age 70.

Chase Bank filed a foreclosure suit against defendants / appellants (a husband and wife) and filed returns of service signed by Chase's process server who certified that he served both appellants at the same time on the same date.

Following the release of the ONCA judgment, counsel for the successful appellant wrote to the court to ask about the costs award that had been awarded to the respondent husband at the court below.

In 1998, the husband (appellant) took out a group... Read more

The appellant claimed the loss of her husband's job had caused their homelessness.

What was vital, he observed, «are the judge's findings as to the complete absence of boundaries between the husband and his companies observed by not only him, who is not an appellant, but also the companies, who are».