David Morneau

The court determined the costs arising from family law motions argued on May 16, 2013 concerning issues including the matrimonial home, return of personal belongings, and related financial matters.

The judge concluded that the motions produced predictable outcomes and largely reflected positions that had already been proposed in settlement correspondence.

Although neither party clearly succeeded overall, the court considered the parties’ settlement conduct under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party’s counsel had previously proposed settlement and mediation, while the responding party did not respond.

As a balanced result, the court ordered partial indemnity costs in favour of the applicant.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking final disposition orders regarding two children.

The court considered whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.

The evidentiary record showed longstanding domestic violence, repeated non‑compliance with court orders, and the parents’ inability to provide safe care despite extensive services and prior interventions.

The responding parent filed no evidentiary materials opposing the motion and relied only on speculation that a trial might produce additional evidence.

The court held that no genuine issue for trial existed and granted summary judgment, ordering custody of one child to the maternal grandparents under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act and Crown wardship without access for the other child.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Director of Licensing and Enforcement suspending his level II life insurance licence for 60 days due to his failure to satisfy continuing education requirements and furnishing false information.

At the hearing, the appellant sought to introduce new evidence regarding his mental stress, which the Tribunal refused to admit as it did not meet the conditions for new evidence on appeal.

The Tribunal confirmed the Director's decision but varied the commencement date of the suspension to avoid undue prejudice to the appellant's clientele during the RRSP season.

The appellant brought a motion to stay a decision of the Director suspending his level II life insurance licence for failure to satisfy continuing education requirements, pending his appeal to the Tribunal.

Applying the three-part test from RJR-Macdonald, the Tribunal found there was a serious question to be tried, the appellant would suffer irreparable harm if unable to carry on his business, and the balance of convenience favoured the appellant as his conduct did not call into direct question his competence.

The motion for a stay was granted.