Denis Edmund Burns

The applicant sought costs following a successful interim spousal support motion.

The court considered the applicant's offers to settle, which included costs provisions and spousal support for periods not covered by the order.

The court found that these offers did not meet the strict conditions of Rule 18(14) for full indemnity due to the inclusion of costs and extraneous support periods.

However, the offers were considered under Rule 18(16).

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 24(12), the court awarded the applicant $11,500 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, rejecting the respondent's argument that the applicant's conduct was unreasonable.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The primary issue was the respondent's early retirement and whether income should be imputed to him.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed, as his retirement was voluntary and not due to health or incapacity, and he had not sought new employment.

Income was imputed to the respondent based on an average of his pre-retirement earnings, including commissions and capital gains.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $8,000 per month and maintained the applicant as an irrevocable beneficiary of a life insurance policy.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and possession of cannabis contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after police observed him operating a motor vehicle at high speed and determined his ability was impaired by marijuana consumption.

The accused had a valid medical prescription for the marijuana.

The accused entered a guilty plea, but the court struck the plea after determining that the facts did not disclose an offence of unlawful possession.

The court held that lawful possession of a prescribed substance does not become unlawful merely because the accused subsequently used it while operating a motor vehicle, distinguishing the case from Elias v. The Queen on the basis that the accused was always lawfully entitled to possess the prescribed marijuana.

The applicant sought to vary spousal support upwards, arguing the respondent deliberately reduced his income and failed to disclose financial benefits to minimize support obligations.

The respondent sought to reduce spousal support due to retirement.

The court found the respondent's retirement and reduced income were part of a scheme to reduce spousal support, imputed income to him for several years, and found the applicant had not made sufficient efforts to become self-sufficient.

Spousal support was varied upwards for the applicant, and significant arrears were ordered.