D.J. Gordon

The applicant sought retroactive and future spousal support following a 25-year traditional marriage.

The respondent, who had recently retired after 30 years of service, opposed future support, arguing his pension had already been equalized.

The court awarded $15,000 in retroactive spousal support but dismissed the claim for future support, finding the respondent's retirement was reasonable and he had no obligation to supplement his pension income.

Claims for compensatory support and arguments regarding gross repudiation of the marriage were also dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants as guarantors of a $500,000 loan provided for a retirement home construction project.

The defendants argued they were released from their guarantees due to material alterations to the loan agreement, accord and satisfaction, premature demand, and laches.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' under Rule 20 and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court rejected all defences, finding no material alteration, no acceptance of units in satisfaction of the debt, that the loan was due, and that the delay in demanding payment benefited rather than prejudiced the defendants.

Summary judgment was granted in the amount claimed.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the parties provided written submissions on costs.

The parties agreed to a costs award of $500 to reimburse the respondent for out-of-pocket expenses.

The court approved the joint request and ordered the appellant to pay $500 in costs.

The appellant moving company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $22,419.00 in damages for retaining her personal property.

The dispute arose when the appellant demanded $889.88 instead of the agreed $500.00 for a move, and subsequently placed the respondent's property in storage when she refused to pay the higher amount.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no overriding and palpable error in the trial judge's conclusions that there was a fixed price contract and that the damage award was appropriate.

The court also rejected the appellant's claim of judicial bias.

The defendants, charged with aggravated sexual assault for allegedly failing to disclose their HIV-positive status before engaging in consensual sexual acts with the complainants, brought a pre-trial application under section 276 of the Criminal Code.

They sought to cross-examine the complainants on their prior sexual activity, including casual and group sex, to challenge their credibility and their assertion that they would not have consented had they known of the defendants' HIV status.

The court granted the application, finding the proposed evidence highly relevant to the issue of whether consent was vitiated by fraud, and concluded its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice to the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving while disqualified.

He argued that the Crown could not rely on a provincial license suspension to prove disqualification because he had not been informed of the penal consequences of driving while disqualified, as required by section 260(1) of the Criminal Code for court-ordered prohibitions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the notice requirements in section 260(1) apply only to court-ordered prohibitions under section 259(5)(a) and do not apply when the Crown proves disqualification via a provincial suspension under section 259(5)(b).

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record, Steven Gadbois, due to a conflict of interest.

Gadbois had previously represented a key defence witness, Mr. Azevedo, in a related action.

The defendants argued that Gadbois possessed confidential information about Azevedo and might be called as a witness regarding an unsigned document he prepared.

The court applied the test from Macdonald Estate v. Martin and found that Gadbois' duty of loyalty to his former client created a conflict, particularly since he would have to cross-examine Azevedo.

The motion to remove counsel was granted.

In a pre-trial motion for charges of aggravated sexual assault related to HIV non-disclosure, the court assessed the admissibility of the accused's police statement.

The court found several issues with the police conduct, including a missing minute of video recording, improper communication between officers, and failure to provide sufficient information regarding outstanding warrants before the accused waived his right to counsel.

Crucially, police breached a remand warrant by returning the accused to the police station instead of a detention centre.

The court ruled the statement inadmissible, finding the Crown failed to prove voluntariness.