David Williams

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

The respondent opposed, arguing the parties were not spouses under the Family Law Act as they did not cohabit in a conjugal relationship for three years.

The court found a prima facie case that the parties cohabited in a conjugal relationship for ten years, despite maintaining separate residences at times.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $1,400 per month based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The statutory third party, Gore Mutual Insurance Company, brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The moving party claimed that plaintiffs' counsel provided legal advice to the unrepresented defendant driver, objected to questions on his behalf, and met with him behind closed doors during a discovery break.

The court found that counsel's actions did not amount to a solicitor-client relationship with the unrepresented defendant and that no confidential information was exchanged.

The motion to remove counsel was dismissed.

The mother brought a motion to change a joint custody order, seeking sole custody of the parties' 8-year-old daughter.

The father responded by also seeking sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the parents could no longer communicate effectively, rendering joint custody unworkable.

After an 8-day trial featuring evidence from the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the child's psychotherapist, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The court found the father provided a more stable environment, ensured regular school attendance, and fostered the child's extracurricular activities.

The mother's access was ordered to remain unsupervised, conditional upon her engaging in counselling to address her parenting skills and anger towards the father.

Claims for child support were dismissed due to the mother's limited income.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the estates of the deceased drivers.

Due to the plaintiff and his father sharing the same name, the plaintiff's counsel mistakenly believed the plaintiff owned the vehicle and did not name the father as a defendant.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiff added the father as a defendant.

The third-party insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against the father as statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the father's ownership was discoverable with reasonable diligence before the limitation period expired, and drew an adverse inference from the failure of the plaintiff, his father, and their senior counsel to provide affidavits.

The applicant brought an urgent application for physician-assisted death and sought confidentiality orders, including a publication ban and sealing order, without giving notice to the media.

The court balanced the open court principle with the applicant's dire medical circumstances and privacy interests.

The court granted an interim publication ban and sealing order, authorized the use of pseudonyms, and directed the applicant to provide notice to the media, giving the media 60 days to bring a motion to challenge the orders.