Colin Still

The applicant sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed this and brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession, retroactive child and spousal support, and an order to include pre-marriage co-habitation in pension valuation.

The court granted the applicant's motion for partition and sale, finding that the respondent's arguments for delaying the sale, including the children's attachment to the home and the "joint family venture" claim, were insufficient to defeat the prima facie right to sale.

The respondent's motion for exclusive possession was dismissed, but other aspects of her cross-motion were preserved for future determination.

The court ordered the matrimonial home to be listed for sale with a closing date not before June 26, 2020, and for a portion of the proceeds to be held in trust.

This decision addresses costs following a trial concerning child support.

The Applicant (Mother) sought full recovery costs of $24,882.29, while the Respondent (Father) argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the Applicant had marginal success on the substantive child support issues but awarded her $10,000 in costs due to the Respondent's unreasonable behaviour, including failure to provide disclosure and obfuscation of income.

The award was deemed proportionate to the issues and outcome, and enforceable as an incident of child support.

The parties settled their family law dispute regarding spousal support and property on the eve of trial, leaving only the issue of costs to be determined.

The respondent sought costs based on an early offer to settle, while the applicant argued for no costs or a nominal amount due to the respondent's late disclosure of her job loss.

The court found that both parties had withheld important productions and acted unreasonably at times.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the applicant to pay $5,000 in costs to the respondent.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol (over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood).

The Crown relied on expert toxicology evidence to establish the accused's blood alcohol level at the time of driving, as the breath tests were taken more than two hours after the alleged offence and the statutory presumption of identity could not be applied.

The defence raised evidence of bolus drinking—specifically, that the accused consumed 1 to 2 ounces of Sambuca liqueur (38% alcohol) immediately before driving.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no large quantities of alcohol were consumed within 15 minutes of driving, creating a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit at the time of operation.

The accused was acquitted.

The moving party sought an order under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the defendants and a non-party to pay into court any monies arising from a prospective dealership transaction, alleging entitlement to commission as an independent contractor.

The court considered whether the requirements for payment into court of a specific fund were satisfied, including the existence of a specific identifiable fund, a proprietary claim, a serious issue to be tried, and the balance of convenience.

The evidence showed that only a non-binding letter of intent existed and no binding agreement or completed transaction had occurred.

The court held that a contractual claim for potential commissions does not constitute a proprietary claim to a specific fund and that no identifiable fund existed.

The motion was dismissed as speculative and unsupported by the evidentiary record.

A dispute arose over the interpretation of a bonus provision in an independent consultant agreement between a brokerage manager and an insurance brokerage.

The plaintiff argued that once the contractual production threshold was met, the bonus percentage applied to total production, while the defendants argued it applied only to production above the threshold.

The court interpreted the contract as granting a bonus calculated on total production once the threshold was achieved, emphasizing the wording of the agreement and the factual matrix.

In the alternative, the court held that any ambiguity would be resolved against the drafter under the doctrine of contra proferentem.

The plaintiff recovered unpaid bonus commissions but was denied additional damages for lost income due to failure to mitigate.

The defendants’ counterclaim alleging breach of fiduciary duty and solicitation was dismissed for lack of evidence.

In a family law motion following separation, the respondent sought temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and primary residence of the children.

The parties continued living under the same roof after separation, while serious behavioural issues had emerged for one child amid parental conflict.

Applying s. 24(3) of the Family Law Act, the court held that the best interests of the children—particularly the need to reduce household conflict affecting the child—justified granting exclusive possession.

Evidence indicated the respondent had historically been the primary caregiver, supporting an order that the children reside primarily with her.

The court also ordered guideline child support based on the applicant’s income but declined to award temporary spousal support.