Allen Wilford

In a matrimonial proceeding involving a lodge business subject to a court‑appointed receivership, the respondent husband moved to remove the receiver, stay payments, and seek contempt findings against the applicant wife.

The wife cross‑applied for transfer of the property into her name and other interim relief including support.

The court held that removal of a receiver requires strong evidence of bad faith or misconduct and found no basis to discharge the receiver despite disputes over expenditures and alleged bias.

The court declined to transfer ownership of the property or make certain enforcement orders but granted modest interim spousal support and ordered financial disclosure.

Several ancillary requests, including contempt findings and other relief, were denied pending trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion for increased child support, spousal support, and disclosure.

After receiving late financial disclosure shortly before the hearing, the disclosure issue was abandoned, but the timing and adequacy of financial information complicated income determination.

The court found the respondent father underemployed and unable to provide reliable financial analysis from his construction business records.

On an interim basis, the court imputed income of approximately $80,000 and ordered increased interim spousal and child support, including additional support for the applicant’s medical expenses.

The decision emphasized the inadequacy of the financial record and the necessity of temporary orders pending fuller analysis.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including robbery and using an imitation firearm, arising from two home invasions.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

The victim identified the accused, but the court found the identification evidence to be weak due to poor lighting, the use of disguises, and the victim's limited prior knowledge of the accused.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court believed the accused's denials and found that the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they were not 'farmers' under the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was inadequate evidence to show the appellants were engaged in farming for commercial purposes.

The Court also rejected the argument that an earlier motion for security for costs rendered the issue res judicata.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.