David L. Lanthier

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage during which they built a successful recreational equipment business.

The trial judge ordered the husband to pay $9,584 per month in spousal support, attributing $400,000 in annual income to him based on past corporate profits.

The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to apply the Child Support Guidelines to determine the husband's income and by adopting an unreasonable approach to estimating future corporate profits.

The Court reassessed the husband's income at $214,872 and the wife's income at $109,535, and substituted a spousal support order of $1,500 per month.

This was a costs decision following a family trial in which spousal support remained the only unresolved merits issue.

The applicant moved to amend the trial disposition on costs after the court had initially ordered each side to bear its own costs without being advised of a written offer to settle.

Applying the Family Law Rules governing costs and offers to settle, the court held that it retained discretion to change the unentered judgment and that the respondent's failure to accept the applicant's offer was a significant factor.

After considering proportionality, reasonableness, complexity, conduct, and the actual fees claimed, the court awarded the applicant $60,000 inclusive for the period after the offer, with each party bearing their own prior costs.

The parties separated after a long marriage during which they built a successful family business.

They settled property issues, with the respondent buying out the applicant's share of the business for over $1.6 million.

The applicant sought spousal support, arguing economic disadvantage and loss of the pre-separation standard of living.

The respondent argued that the property equalization precluded spousal support and that the applicant had no need.

The court found the applicant entitled to support, distinguishing the equalization of a business from a pension, and ordered the respondent to pay $9,584 per month based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, while declining to impute additional income to the respondent for alleged undisclosed cash transactions or business perks.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing claims against several individual defendants on the basis that all contractual dealings were with a corporate entity operating under a business name.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known it was contracting with a corporation rather than individuals.

The court reviewed evidence including cheques, website references, and business name registration and applied the summary judgment framework under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff had sufficient notice that it was dealing with a corporation, leaving a genuine issue requiring a trial.

However, the claim against one individual defendant was dismissed for lack of any evidence of involvement in the transactions.

The applicant, a Town Councilor with a hearing impairment, alleged that the Town of Cochrane and its Mayor discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability.

The applicant requested a speaker system after ear buds proved insufficient, and used a tape recorder to review meetings.

The respondents confiscated the tape recorder and failed to install a speaker system.

The Tribunal found that the Town failed to meet its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant's disability up to the point of undue hardship.

The Town was ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages and review its accommodation policies.

The application against the Mayor personally was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondents refused to permit him to record a town council meeting as an accommodation for his hearing disability.

The respondents argued the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because a prior civil action between the parties had been settled and a release signed.

The Tribunal found that the prior civil pleadings did not raise the issue of recording council meetings, and the release did not specifically mention the human rights complaint.

The request to bar the application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order declaring him in contempt of court and imposing costs sanctions.

The Divisional Court raised a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction under s. 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to hear an appeal from a contempt order.

Noting confusion over whether the motion judge actually intended to make a contempt finding, the Court adjourned the appeal to allow the parties to seek clarification from the motion judge and to address potential leave to appeal requirements if the contempt finding is removed.

The complainant, a waitress, alleged she was terminated from her employment because of her pregnancy.

After experiencing complications requiring bed rest, she informed her employer and offered a medical note.

The employer claimed she quit and that he had already intended to fire her for poor performance.

The Board found the complainant's version of events more credible, concluding she did not quit and that the employer used her pregnancy and request for medical leave as an opportunity to terminate her.

The Board held this constituted discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and awarded specific and general damages.