Barbara Joanne Morgan

Following a mid-trial settlement of spousal support and equalization issues, the applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondent engaged in unreasonable behaviour by failing to pay temporary spousal support for 14 months and by transferring the former matrimonial home to his son in direct contravention of a non-depletion order.

While the court declined to find bad faith under Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, it awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs of $38,029.95 under Rule 24(14) to sanction the respondent's conduct.

This divorce action involved the equalization of net family properties between the Applicant, Pamela Joan Peters, and the Respondent, Robert Ernest Colin Peters.

Key issues included the determination of whether the Colonization Road home was a matrimonial home, the valuation of various assets and debts at the date of marriage and separation, and the reimbursement for post-separation expenses paid by the Applicant.

The court found the Colonization Road home to be a matrimonial home, which prevented the Respondent from deducting its date of marriage value.

The court made specific findings on the values of household goods, trailers, tools, credit card debts, and other assets, and determined the amounts for post-separation expense reimbursements, ultimately ordering an equalization payment and further reimbursements to the Applicant.

The applicants, nieces of the deceased, brought a motion for directions to challenge the validity of the deceased's 2014 Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondent neighbour.

The court found the applicants met the minimum evidentiary threshold by adducing evidence of the deceased's cognitive decline, delusions, and hospitalizations for confusion.

The court ordered a trial of the issues, production of solicitor and medical records, and a preservation order over the estate assets.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control and refusing to provide breath samples.

The impaired count was withdrawn on the first day of trial.

The Crown proceeded on the refusal charge.

The central issue was whether a police officer lawfully entered the accused's residence to conduct an impaired investigation.

The officer attended the accused's residence after receiving a dispatch regarding a possible drunk driver.

Upon arrival, the officer observed the accused at the front door and testified that the accused invited him inside.

The accused denied issuing an invitation.

The court found that while the officer's documentation was deficient, his testimony regarding the invitation was credible and unrebutted by the accused's discredited testimony.

The court held that the entry was lawful based on the accused's invitation and that the Crown met its burden on a balance of probabilities.

The conviction for refusing to provide breath samples was entered.

The accused, a 53-year-old member of the Couchiching First Nation, pleaded guilty to mischief, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, breach of undertaking by possessing a weapon, and assault.

The offences arose from two incidents: first, damage to a kitchen countertop and threats with a baseball bat during a confrontation with his common-law partner; second, a barricaded situation involving a loaded shotgun during a suicidal crisis.

The court imposed a restorative sentence emphasizing Gladue principles, recognizing the intergenerational trauma stemming from residential schools and the unique circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

The applicant, Terry Korczynski, brought a motion to retroactively and prospectively vary a child support order from 2007, seeking rescission of arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's significant and sustained income reduction, attributed to bipolar affective disorder.

Applying the D.B.S. principles, the court determined that arrears should be rescinded from 2011 and future child support set to zero, as the applicant was unable to pay.

The respondent's request to transfer property to satisfy arrears was denied.

In a family law proceeding concerning an eight‑year‑old child, the court addressed trial management issues relating to a dispute over the father's access to the child.

The parties agreed that the mother would have custody, leaving the principal issue for trial as the nature, frequency, and conditions of the father’s access, including whether access should be supervised.

The court directed the parties to prepare detailed calendars documenting proposed and exercised access, and ordered the exchange of factual statements before trial.

Additional procedural agreements were recorded, including potential electronic examination of the children's lawyer's report author and continuation of the temporary order pending trial.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking unsupervised access to his child, or alternatively supervised access, along with an order appointing a psychologist to conduct an assessment.

The respondent mother sought limited supervised access and requested that the Office of the Children’s Lawyer represent the child.

The court found that the child had minimal prior contact with the father and had not seen him for over a year.

Balancing the child’s need for stability and the potential to gradually develop a relationship with the father, the court ordered biweekly supervised access through a supervised access program for six months and requested involvement of the Children’s Lawyer.

The request for a psychological assessment was dismissed without prejudice, and custody was granted to the mother on consent.