Carol J. Craig

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application in contested estate proceedings challenging the validity of powers of attorney executed by their mother in 2013.

The appellants sought to invalidate the 2013 powers of attorney and reinstate 1995 powers of attorney.

The central issue was whether the testator had the requisite capacity to execute the 2013 powers of attorney.

The application judge found that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of capacity with clear evidence on a balance of probabilities.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the application judge's assessment of the evidence or exercise of discretion.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 final order to reduce her child support obligations effective January 1, 2016, due to a significant reduction in her income caused by mental health challenges and the sale of two of her dental practices.

The respondent father sought retroactive child support adjustments for 2013, 2014, and 2015, arguing the mother's income was higher than previously disclosed.

The court dismissed the father's claim for retroactive support, finding no material change in circumstances prior to 2016 and no blameworthy conduct by the mother.

The court determined the mother's income for support purposes from 2016 onwards by excluding non-recurring capital gains from the sale of her practices and applying a working capital analysis to her corporate income, resulting in a reduction of her ongoing child support obligations.

The parties sought a determination on the applicable interest rate for child support and post-secondary education arrears previously found owing.

The respondent mother argued for a 6% post-judgment interest rate from the 2008 order date, accruing from default, based on s. 129 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant father proposed various alternative average interest rates or the rate from the date of the endorsement quantifying arrears.

The court found that the father's obligations were known from the 2008 order, and the mother's motion was for enforcement.

The court rejected the father's proposals for lack of certainty and insufficient evidence to exercise discretion under s. 130 CJA.

The court applied s. 129(1) and (2) of the CJA, ruling that a 6% post-judgment interest rate from the 2008 order date applied, accruing from the date of each default.

No costs were awarded due to the parties' unreasonable litigation conduct on this issue.

The moving party husband brought a motion to change to terminate his spousal support obligation to the responding party wife.

The parties were married for 15 years with no children, and the husband had paid support for 11 years.

The court found that the husband had fully met his support obligation, noting the wife's failure to promptly seek full-time employment post-separation and her poor financial management.

The motion was granted, and spousal support was terminated.

The appellant father appealed an order of the Superior Court motion judge who struck his motion to change a trial judge's order for spousal and child support, and granted the Family Responsibility Office's motion for enforcement.

The trial judge had imputed annual income of $110,000 to the father and ordered him to pay ongoing spousal and child support for two daughters and an equalization payment.

The father had failed to comply with multiple court orders, owing over $60,000 in support arrears and over $50,000 in equalization payments.

The motion judge found the father had the means to pay but chose not to prioritize court-ordered payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary orders.

The applicant previously brought a motion regarding arrears of child support and section 7 expenses.

The court issued an endorsement but left 2015 arrears undetermined pending income information.

The parties subsequently agreed on the respondent's 2015 income and arrears.

The court issued this addendum to update the previous endorsement with the agreed-upon figures for child support and post-secondary education expenses.

The father brought a motion to change previous orders regarding child support, spousal support, and access.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to his failure to comply with multiple previous court orders, including failing to pay over $60,000 in support arrears and over $50,000 in an equalization payment.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) brought a motion to enforce the support arrears.

The court granted the mother's motion to strike, finding the father had the means to pay but chose not to, and prohibited him from bringing further motions to change without leave until all arrears and costs are paid.

The court also granted the FRO's motion, ordering the father to pay $61,292.68 in arrears within 30 days and $20,000 as security within 45 days, failing which the FRO could seek his committal.

The moving party in a family law dispute sought to be declared a special party and have a litigation guardian appointed due to severe depression and anxiety.

She also sought to seal her counsel's affidavit to protect solicitor-client privilege.

The responding party opposed the motion, seeking an independent medical examination, the unsealing of the affidavit, the questioning of the moving party's psychologist, and further disclosure regarding a long-term disability claim.

The court granted the special party declaration and appointed the litigation guardian, finding the moving party incapable of instructing counsel.

The court sealed the counsel's affidavit, denied the medical examination, permitted limited questioning of the psychologist, and ordered partial disclosure of the disability claim.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to be declared a "special party" under Rule 2 of the Family Law Rules and to have a litigation guardian appointed due to alleged mental incapacity preventing her participation in trial.

The applicant opposed, arguing the respondent had not met the onus of demonstrating incapacity and that such an appointment would deprive him of a fair trial.

The court found that while the medical evidence indicated significant stress and mental health issues, it did not conclusively establish that the respondent was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her decisions or instruct counsel.

The motion was dismissed, but adjourned to allow the respondent to submit further evidence regarding her capacity.

Following a family law trial involving parenting, property, spousal support, and child support, both parties sought costs.

The court found that neither party achieved success on the property issues and both made unreasonable settlement offers.

The court declined to award costs for parenting, property, or spousal support due to divided success and the parties' failure to act in the children's best interests.

However, the applicant was awarded $7,500 in partial recovery costs for the issue of child support, as the respondent's position on child support was unsuccessful and he preferred his own financial interests over his support obligations.

The respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis following a motion to enforce a prior order.

The court found the respondent to be the "more successful party" but not "almost entirely successful" and that settlement offers did not trigger full recovery.

The court also noted the respondent's "dogmatic" approach to medical/dental expenses disproportionately increased hearing time.

The applicant's conduct regarding post-secondary education obligations was deemed "obfuscation and deliberate." Costs were awarded to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis, but reduced due to excessive fees and unreasonable disbursements (investigator).

The applicant mother sought to enforce and vary a 2008 child support order, including retroactive adjustments for child support and section 7 expenses for two adult children.

The respondent father disputed the retroactive application of support principles, arguing one child was no longer a "child of the marriage" when the motion was initiated.

The court characterized the mother's motion primarily as one of enforcement due to the father's failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations under the existing order.

The court determined the father's income for various years, his province of residence for child support table calculations, and the termination dates for child support for both children.

The court also addressed post-secondary education expenses, excluding bus passes, and found the father failed to prove his contributions.

For section 7 expenses, the court emphasized the requirement for advance written consent for each expense, finding the mother had disregarded this process.

This family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following a contentious separation.

The court found significant credibility issues with both parents, particularly regarding their financial disclosures and conduct impacting the children's relationship with the father.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the mother, established a detailed access schedule, imputed income to both parents for support calculations, and ordered an equalization payment and post-separation credits in favour of the mother.

Mortgages unilaterally registered by the father against the matrimonial home were set aside, and both properties were ordered sold.

Lump sum spousal support was declined, but future spousal support was reserved.

Security for child support was ordered from the father's share of property sale proceeds.

This was an interim support motion where the applicant sought child and spousal support from the respondent.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support and the respondent obligated to pay child support.

Despite the respondent's claim of lower income, the court was not convinced, noting his operational businesses and substantial retained incomes under his sole control.

The court fixed the respondent's yearly income, on a without prejudice basis, at $130,000 and ordered him to pay child support of $1,781.00 per month and spousal support of $2,000.00 per month, retroactive to April 1, 2016.

The Applicant successfully moved to take over the parties’ rental property and use its income for her and their children's support.

The Respondent's cross-motion to reduce support to zero was dismissed.

The court found the Respondent behaved unreasonably by refusing to pay court-ordered support, blocking the Applicant’s access to funds, and failing to disclose significant financial information.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant on a substantial indemnity scale.

The applicant brought a motion to vary and replace several paragraphs of a previous custody and access order and to obtain an order preventing the respondent from signing children out of school without the applicant's consent.

The court found the respondent had repeatedly breached the existing order by taking children out of school early and keeping them home without justification.

All requested amendments were granted to clarify access times, specify return protocols for sick children, and restrict the respondent's ability to remove children from school outside of scheduled access.

This trial decision addresses divorce, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following a difficult marriage.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to intentional under-employment and an unreasonable job search, while finding the applicant's pursuit of a teaching degree reasonable.

Retroactive child and spousal support were ordered, with spousal support reviewable upon the applicant's graduation.

The court also resolved disputes regarding a matrimonial home deposit and property valuation for equalization, awarding prejudgment interest to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings or, in the alternative, for possession of a jointly held rental property due to the respondent's failure to pay court-ordered child and spousal support.

The respondent sought to reduce his support obligations to zero, claiming an inability to work due to depression.

The court rejected the respondent's evidence of disability as unreliable and noted his failure to disclose significant financial transactions.

Relying on Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court granted the applicant possession of the rental property to manage and receive income, ordering the respondent to vacate the premises.