Daved Muttart

The appellants appealed an Ontario Securities Commission decision finding they committed securities fraud and traded without registration.

They argued the panel breached procedural fairness by denying an adjournment, violated their Charter rights by admitting compelled testimony, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjournment refusal was reasonable, the proceedings were administrative rather than criminal so Charter protections did not apply to the compelled statements, and the panel's reasons were sufficient and correctly applied the Securities Act to a sole proprietorship.

A costs decision following a family law trial involving child support and spousal support.

The court found divided success between the parties.

The father obtained an entitlement to spousal support but received significantly less than sought and for a limited term.

The mother successfully obtained a child support order and imputed income to the father.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $756, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, to be offset against support arrears owed by the mother to the father.

A trial concerning child and spousal support between unmarried parents of a thirteen-year-old child.

The mother sought child support retroactive to November 2012 (separation date) and requested imputation of the father's income at $60,000 per annum.

The father sought spousal support of $1,000-$1,400 per month with no time limit.

The court found the father deliberately under-employed and imputed his income at $28,000 per annum based on his capacity to earn.

The court awarded child support of $228 per month and time-limited spousal support of $480 per month for nine years, with both awards offset so that the mother pays the father $252 per month net.

Support obligations commenced January 1, 2014.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application for declaratory relief as statute-barred.

The appellant argued that under s. 16(1)(a) of the Limitations Act, there is no limitation period for his application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application implicitly sought consequential relief, taking it outside the scope of s. 16(1)(a).

The Court noted that any viable claim the appellant might have would be through an application for an order to pass accounts.