Daniel Steven Ableser

The respondent brought a motion for a determination of the appropriate quantum of temporary spousal support.

The court was tasked with determining the applicant's income for support purposes, considering personal expenses paid by the business and non-arm's length wages.

The court averaged expert calculations to arrive at an income of $634,733 for the applicant and ordered temporary spousal support of $20,000 per month, retroactive to December 1, 2017.

The decision emphasized "rough justice" for interim orders and the application of Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines despite the payor's income exceeding the ceiling.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment granted by the motion judge in favour of the respondent.

The motion judge determined that the appellants' shareholder loan outstanding as of February 6, 2014 was $219,315 and that the outstanding balance at the time of the company's bankruptcy was at least $161,724.75.

The appellants argued that partial summary judgment was inappropriate and that the motion judge erred in making factual determinations without evidence rebutting their assertions regarding payments made on behalf of the bankrupt company.

The Court of Appeal upheld the partial summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the matter was essentially an accounting exercise determinable on documentary evidence and that the appellants' evidence did not support their claims.

A motion was brought by C. M. to be added as a respondent to a custody application brought by the paternal grandmother against the child's parents.

The moving party sought party status following the release of a child psychiatrist's report containing allegations of sexual abuse by the moving party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party was not a necessary party to the proceeding.

The court held that the dispute between the applicant and respondents could be adjudicated without the moving party as a party, and that any relevant evidence could be presented through witness testimony.

The court emphasized that adding a party solely to protect reputation and not to claim substantive relief would divert focus from the paramount consideration of the best interests of the child.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 4(1)(c) of the Family Law Rules seeking permission to be represented by a non-lawyer companion in ongoing family litigation relating to a prior divorce order addressing custody, access, support, and property issues.

The applicant argued special circumstances existed due to alleged intimidation by the respondent and difficulty retaining counsel because the respondent was a local lawyer.

The court held that non-lawyer representation under Rule 4(1)(c) is a narrow discretionary exception requiring proof of both special circumstances and special expertise.

The court found neither requirement met and further held the proposed representative’s personal relationship with the applicant, potential role as a witness, and animosity toward the respondent made the appointment inappropriate.

The motion for non-lawyer representation was therefore denied and related production motions were adjourned.