Andrew J. Goodman

Following a protracted family law trial primarily concerning the equalization of net family property and the valuation of the applicant's business, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the parties had divided success on the central issue of business valuation, and thus each party would bear their own costs for that portion of the trial.

However, the applicant was successful on the remaining issues, including retroactive support and the value of the matrimonial home.

The court concluded that none of the offers to settle triggered Rule 18(14) cost consequences and rejected allegations of bad faith from both sides.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $45,950 plus HST for the issues on which she succeeded.

The parties separated after a seven-year marriage.

The core issues at trial involved claims for retroactive child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and a claim for unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

A significant portion of the trial focused on determining the fair market value of the applicant's 33.3% interest in a logistics company.

The court preferred the valuation evidence of the respondent's expert, with some modifications, valuing the interest at $358,500.00.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim that equalization would be unconscionable due to a post-separation decline in the company's value.

The court ordered the respondent to pay retroactive child support and reimburse the applicant for an overpayment of spousal support.

Ultimately, the applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $183,589.09 to the respondent.

The applicant sought a declaration that its commercial general liability insurer was obliged to indemnify it for amounts paid in settlement of personal injury claims arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a truck and attached trailer.

The applicant argued that concurrent causes existed, including negligent attachment of the trailer and negligent operation of the vehicle, triggering coverage under the CGL policy and a non‑owned automobile endorsement.

The court held that the alleged negligence arose from the ordinary use or operation of an automobile, including attaching and towing a trailer, and therefore fell within the policy’s automobile exclusion.

The court further found that no independent non‑automobile cause of liability existed and that the non‑owned automobile endorsement did not apply.

The application for indemnity was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar’s administrative dismissal of an action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action had previously been stayed by court order under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 in favour of arbitration pursuant to a contractual arbitration clause.

The court held that a judicial stay places the proceeding in suspended animation such that the parties cannot take further procedural steps and the administrative timelines under Rule 48.14 cannot operate.

The Registrar therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue a status notice and dismissal order while the action remained stayed.

The administrative dismissal and resulting certificate of assessment of costs were set aside and the action remained stayed pending arbitration.

Sentencing following a conviction for robbery contrary to s. 344(b) of the Criminal Code involving a physical attack and robbery of elderly victims.

The court considered aggravating factors including the offender’s role as the principal assailant, the vulnerability of the senior victims, and a lengthy prior criminal record including previous robberies.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth and evidence of emerging insight into an opioid addiction with potential rehabilitation support.

Applying the principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, the court rejected a time-served proposal aimed at facilitating immediate treatment placement.

A custodial sentence was imposed along with probation and ancillary orders.

The accused brought an application to exclude statements made to police following arrest for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused argued that police violated his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel by questioning him after he had requested to speak with a lawyer and before he had a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found that although the police were justified in delaying access to a telephone until arrival at the station due to safety and logistical concerns, officers nonetheless elicited information from the accused during the hold‑off period.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court held the Charter breaches were serious and significantly impacted the accused’s right against self‑incrimination.

The accused’s statements made between arrest and arrival at the police station were excluded under s. 24(2).

The offender was convicted after jury trial of importing 3.532 kilograms of cocaine into Canada, contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court considered the applicable sentencing range for multi‑kilogram cocaine importation, noting appellate authorities establishing a typical range of six to eight years for couriers importing large quantities for personal gain.

Aggravating factors included the substantial quantity of cocaine, motivation for financial gain, limited remorse, and a prior drug-related conviction abroad.

Mitigating factors included a difficult upbringing and the limited role of the offender as a courier.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, the court imposed an eight-year sentence with enhanced credit for pre‑trial custody.

A lengthy family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, and equalization following the breakdown of a marriage involving one child.

The court evaluated extensive evidence, including a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment, and found that although both parents contributed to ongoing conflict, joint custody was not workable due to their inability to cooperate.

The court accepted the assessor’s recommendation that sole custody be granted to the mother, with structured and liberal access to the father, emphasizing the child’s best interests and the need for stability.

The father’s income was found to be intentionally under‑employed and was imputed for child support purposes.

The court also determined property equalization, preferring the mother’s net family property calculations with limited adjustments.

The defendant retailer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence and occupiers’ liability claim after a customer was struck by an ice cream container that fell while she attempted to remove stacked containers from a high freezer shelf.

The plaintiffs alleged the store negligently stacked the products and breached its duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

The court reviewed the modern summary judgment framework under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The evidence showed the stacking method was consistent with industry practice and did not create an unreasonable risk of harm.

The court held the incident resulted from the plaintiff’s own actions in attempting to remove the containers from above head height and dismissed the action.

The applicant father sought sole custody of the parties' two young children.

The respondent mother had made repeated, unsubstantiated allegations of sexual and physical abuse against the father, leading to numerous investigations by police and child protection agencies, all of which were closed without charges.

The court-appointed assessor and multiple therapists testified that the children suffered from disorganized attachment and were being harmed by the mother's fixed, delusional belief that the father was dangerous.

The court found that the mother's conduct was alienating and contrary to the children's best interests.

Sole custody was awarded to the father immediately, with the mother's access suspended pending further review and therapy.