Alan Arkilander

The applicant sought interim spousal support following a seven-year relationship with no children of the marriage.

The parties maintained separate finances during the marriage, except for a joint account for specific household expenses.

The court found no evidence of economic disadvantage, career subordination, or economic merger.

The motion for interim spousal support was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for entitlement.

A custody dispute between two parents following their separation in April 2013.

The applicant sought custody of two biological children, while the respondent sought custody of all four children (including two older children from her previous relationship).

The court found that the applicant had engaged in a pattern of controlling, abusive, and physically violent behavior toward the respondent and the children, including grabbing them by the throat and neck.

The respondent was awarded sole custody of both children, with the applicant granted bi-weekly access.

The court rejected the clinical investigator's recommendation for shared care, finding that such an arrangement would perpetuate the struggle for control and be contrary to the children's best interests.

Former business associates disputed financial obligations arising from a commercial lease, alleged tax arrears, a purported deposit toward a contemplated property purchase, and a counterclaim for vehicle repair work.

The court found the tenant was responsible for property taxes but concluded that a portion of the increased monthly payments was intended to cover ongoing tax obligations, leaving only a small balance outstanding.

The tenant failed to prove that the deposit exceeded the amount admitted by the landlord.

The counterclaim for historic vehicle repair work was dismissed on the merits despite the absence of a pleaded limitations defence.

After set‑off of the parties’ obligations, judgment was granted in favour of the defendant for the balance.

The respondent requested the dismissal of an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil action was a claim for breach of contract and did not seek remedies for an alleged breach of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, section 34(11) of the Code did not apply to bar the application.

The respondent's request for dismissal was denied, and it was ordered to file a full response.

The responding parent was alleged to be in contempt of a final custody and access order providing for shared parenting on an alternating weekly basis.

The moving parent claimed the child was withheld during scheduled parenting time over the Christmas holiday.

The court held that civil contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a clear order was deliberately and wilfully disobeyed.

While a child’s refusal may complicate compliance, a parent must take reasonable steps to ensure the child follows the order.

The court found contempt established for a single incident where the responding parent failed to take reasonable steps to facilitate the child’s attendance with the other parent, but not for subsequent periods because the moving parent made no further attempts to exercise access.