C. A. Tucker

The parties separated in 2008 and settled property issues, leaving custody, access, and child support to be determined.

The mother sought joint custody with final decision-making authority, while the father sought joint custody without such authority and increased access to reach a 40 percent threshold.

The court ordered joint custody with no final decision-making authority to either party, finding they had a history of cooperative decision-making.

The court maintained the children's primary residence with the mother and established a detailed access schedule for the father.

The court also ordered the father to pay ongoing child support of $1,141.25 per month and retroactive child support fixed at $12,000.

The applicant sought an order compelling the municipality to issue a building permit for a parcel created through a series of intra-family conveyances designed to circumvent the Planning Act.

The court examined whether the parcel constituted a valid lot and whether the municipality could refuse the permit under the Building Code Act on the basis of contravention of other applicable law.

The court held that the initial conveyances forming the root of title were fraudulent and constituted a deceit upon the Planning Act because the purported vendors were never owners of the land.

As a result, the deeds were invalid and could not create a valid chain of title or be cured by the 40‑year rule, Planning Act statements, or subsequent conversion to land titles.

The court concluded that the building permit application was the “fruit from the poisoned tree” and refused to grant relief.

The plaintiff sought foreclosure on a mortgage securing loans advanced to her spouse and his son, who were registered owners of the mortgaged property.

One defendant disputed executing the mortgage and argued that any enforcement was barred by the limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the defendant had signed the mortgage and that the document was valid and enforceable.

Interpreting the mortgage as collateral security with a fixed term and demand feature, the court held that the limitation period had not expired because demand was made in 2008 prior to maturity of the mortgage term.

The court granted foreclosure and possession of the mortgaged property.

Following a family law trial concerning parenting-related issues, the court was required to determine costs.

The respondent sought costs after succeeding on two of three issues, while the applicant argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found that success was divided between the parties and that both had acted unreasonably at times during the litigation.

Given the mixed outcome and equal importance of the issues, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs and that no costs be awarded for the costs submissions.

Following a motion concerning the appropriate income to be used in calculating child support, both parties sought costs.

The dispute arose from the payor’s claim that his present income had decreased and should be used instead of prior income, which would have produced significant arrears.

The court accepted the payor’s position on a temporary basis pending a further review of child support.

Although the issue was important and the argument somewhat novel, the payor was successful on the interim motion.

The court therefore awarded the successful party partial costs reflecting the short duration and limited scope of the motion.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment on a mortgage, the plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis pursuant to the mortgage terms.

The defendant, who was self-represented, declined to provide submissions on costs despite being given the opportunity by the court.

The court considered the legal complexity of the defences raised and the contractual provision providing for substantial indemnity costs.

The court held the amount claimed by the plaintiff was appropriate and ordered the defendant to pay costs in the amount sought.

Following separation after an 18‑year marriage, the court determined issues of child support, spousal support, equalization of debts, and division of a pension.

Each parent had primary residence of one child.

Applying the Child Support Guidelines, the court ordered offset child support based on the parties’ respective incomes, with payments commencing January 1, 2011.

The court also ordered spousal support of $500 per month, recognizing the significant income disparity and long-term marriage but declining to equalize net disposable incomes.

The respondent was held responsible for certain matrimonial debts and cash withdrawals and ordered to reimburse the applicant for utilities and half of joint debts, with pension valuation and division to occur under the Pension Benefits Act.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a paragraph of the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim alleging intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from a false accusation of theft in the employment context.

The defendant argued the pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action under the elements established by the Court of Appeal for the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court held that, at the pleadings stage, the alleged factual matrix—including a false accusation of criminal conduct against a long‑term employee—could potentially satisfy the requirement of flagrant or outrageous conduct calculated to cause harm resulting in a visible and provable illness.

Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the court found it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail.

The motion to strike was therefore dismissed.

A guarantor brought a motion to set aside an order striking her statement of defence and affidavit and to set aside a default summary judgment obtained by a bank arising from loan guarantees executed in connection with corporate borrowing.

The moving party argued she lacked independent legal advice, had limited English proficiency, and was dominated by her spouse when signing the guarantees.

The court acknowledged serious credibility concerns and delay but found potential prejudice to the guarantor if she were denied the opportunity to defend the action.

As the bank’s interests could be protected by maintaining existing execution and garnishment proceedings, the court set aside the order striking the defence and the default judgment.

The moving party was ordered to pay the bank’s thrown-away costs forthwith.

On an interim family law motion, the court addressed issues of spousal support, child support, corporate control, property taxes, and sale of the matrimonial home following separation.

The respondent sought imputation of income to the applicant and the sale of the matrimonial home, while the applicant sought support at the high range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and joint signing authority over a jointly owned company.

The court declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home, finding the request premature given unresolved equalization issues and the presence of other assets.

The court set interim child and spousal support based on the respondent’s income and declined to impute income to the applicant while she pursued education to become self-supporting.

The applicant was granted joint signing authority on the company accounts.