Douglas C. Shaw

In an uncontested trial, the applicant sought divorce, custody, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent was personally served but failed to file an answer or appear.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on the applicant's evidence and ordered ongoing child support, retroactive child support for the remaining child of the marriage, and nominal spousal support.

A divorce was granted, and the applicant was awarded custody.

The accused, Ryan Wilson Christiansen, was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime ($21,250).

The court considered aggravating factors, including the significant quantities of drugs, the sophisticated nature of the operation, and a prior trafficking conviction.

Mitigating factors included the accused's age (31), family support, personal strengths, employment history, learning disability, and the recent suicide of his wife.

The court emphasized general and specific deterrence as primary sentencing principles for drug trafficking.

After considering pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions, the court imposed a total effective sentence of five years and nine months imprisonment.

Ancillary orders included forfeiture of proceeds of crime and drugs, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

The applicant sought joint custody of the child on a week on/week off basis, while the respondent sought primary custody with a specific access schedule.

The court found joint decision-making impracticable due to the parties' inability to communicate.

Considering the child's historical primary caregiver (the respondent) and concerns about the applicant's proposed early morning childcare arrangements, the court granted interim primary custody to the respondent.

The applicant was granted access every second week from Thursday after school/care until Monday morning.

Child support was deferred for later argument.

In this family law motion, the Applicant sought to impute income to the Respondent for alleged underemployment and requested contributions to daycare costs.

The Respondent sought child and spousal support, maintenance of health benefits for herself and the child, and designation as a life insurance beneficiary.

The court found the Applicant failed to establish deliberate underemployment, calculating support based on the Respondent's actual current income.

Interim, interim orders were made for child and spousal support, retroactive to March 1, 2016.

The court also ordered both parties to maintain health benefits for the child and addressed life insurance beneficiaries.

This decision addresses a motion for the appointment of a case management judge to oversee two complex and intertwined files (an application and an action) involving numerous parties and pending motions.

The court found that the litigation had become unmanageable and would benefit from a single judge providing directions and making procedural orders to expedite the proceedings.

Justice Pierce, already familiar with the matters, was appointed as the case management judge under Rules 37.15 and 50.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with all future motions to be heard by her.

The applicant, Robert Buys, successfully applied for an assessment of 17 accounts rendered by the respondent law firm, Carrel + Partners LLP, totaling $63,378.84.

The law firm opposed the application.

Buys sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the firm should have consented and delayed the process, and that his offer to settle was better than the outcome.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted as the firm's conduct did not meet the threshold of "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous." The court awarded partial indemnity costs, considering the applicant's success, the moderate complexity of the issues, the significance of the accounts, and the applicant's offer to settle (though not compliant with Rule 49.03).

The court reduced the claimed hours and disallowed certain disbursements, ultimately awarding $5,000 for fees plus HST, and $125 for photocopying and courier costs plus HST.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing their personal injury action as abandoned under rule 48.15(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action had been commenced within the limitation period but was dismissed after the plaintiffs’ solicitor failed to serve the defendant, mistakenly assuming the insurer would accept service.

The solicitor also delayed more than two years before bringing the motion due to significant personal and professional difficulties.

Applying the contextual approach articulated by the Court of Appeal, the court weighed the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness, and prejudice.

Finding the delay was not deliberate and that the defendant suffered no prejudice, the court set aside the dismissal and extended the time for service.

Costs decision following a motion seeking production of further and better affidavits of documents and cross‑examination on the supplementary affidavit of documents in environmental contamination litigation.

The defendants were successful in obtaining an order requiring the plaintiffs to serve a complete sworn supplementary affidavit of documents after the plaintiffs failed to comply with an earlier case management order.

However, the plaintiffs successfully resisted a request for cross‑examination on the affidavit of documents and defeated allegations of contempt seeking substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the discretion under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed costs based on overall success, proportionality, and reasonableness.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded but reduced to reflect the plaintiffs’ success on certain issues.

Following a family law motion concerning interim spousal support and related relief, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had obtained interim spousal support and reinstatement of extended health coverage, though the support amount awarded was approximately half of what was requested and income had been partially imputed.

The court applied the presumption under Rule 24(1) that a successful party is entitled to costs but considered the mixed success, the absence of an offer to settle, and unnecessary attendances due to adjournments.

A reduced costs award was therefore fixed as fair and reasonable, payable at the conclusion of the trial and subject to variation depending on the outcome of the retroactive support issue.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for failing without reasonable excuse to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample under s.254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by finding he was capable of providing a sample despite evidence he was vomiting, coughing, and complaining of chest pain, and by failing to properly apply the W.(D.) credibility framework.

He also raised a new ground alleging procedural unfairness because the trial proceeded in his absence contrary to s.650(1).

The court held that s.650(1) does not apply to summary conviction trials and that ss.800(2) and 803(2)(a) permitted the trial to proceed in the accused’s absence, particularly where defence counsel consented.

The appellate judge found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s factual findings and concluded the evidence reasonably supported the conviction.

The defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiffs to provide a sworn and certified further and better supplementary affidavit of documents and to produce the proposed deponent for cross‑examination.

The action concerned alleged environmental contamination from a fuel spill on reserve lands.

The court held that although certain environmental consulting documents were in the plaintiffs’ possession, they were subject to a restriction imposed by the consultant and therefore not within the plaintiffs’ control for production without permission.

The plaintiffs were ordered to serve a sworn supplementary affidavit of documents listing such restricted documents in Schedule B if permission for disclosure was not obtained.

The request to compel cross‑examination of the deponent was refused on proportionality grounds, given the remote location of the First Nation and the limited utility of such an examination.

The applicant brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order that required the respondent to pay $3,400 per month.

She argued the respondent had misrepresented his income at a case conference after a T‑4 later showed significantly higher income than initially reported.

The respondent contended that a large portion of the reported income consisted of taxable benefits for room and board while working at a remote Nunavut mining site and did not represent actual cash flow.

The court held that the taxable benefits were necessary to allow the respondent to earn his employment income and did not justify revising the interim support amount.

Finding no material change in circumstances, the court declined to increase the interim support and emphasized that interim motions are summary in nature pending trial.

The moving defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for containing allegedly scandalous or vexatious material.

The court applied the leave test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

While the moving parties argued that the motion judge misapplied established pleading principles, the court held that the issues raised were confined to the interests of the parties and did not involve matters of broader importance warranting appellate review.

The court concluded that the case concerned a routine pleadings determination and that the second requirement for leave—matters of sufficient importance—was not met.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The responding spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal support and related procedural relief in a family law proceeding following a 25‑year marriage.

The dispute centered on the proper determination of the respondent spouse’s income where he operated through a closely‑held corporation.

The court considered whether retained corporate earnings and certain business expenses should be attributed as personal income for support purposes.

Finding that some retained earnings and personal-use components of corporate vehicle and utility expenses should be imputed, the court fixed the respondent spouse’s income at approximately $66,258 for interim purposes.

Applying the Divorce Act and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered interim spousal support pending trial.

The applicant commenced an application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 seeking forfeiture of seized cash.

The proceeding settled pursuant to a Rule 49 offer to settle made by the respondent that returned most of the funds but left costs to be assessed by the court.

The respondent sought costs on the basis that it was largely successful.

The court held that under Rule 49.07(5)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, where a defendant’s offer to settle does not address costs and is accepted, the plaintiff (or applicant) is entitled to costs to the date of service of the offer.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs to that date and also determined costs relating to a separate refusals motion.

Following motions in a family law dispute involving custody, access, and support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant was primarily successful on the core issues of custody and access and on the determination that spousal support should be based on part-time employment income.

The respondent achieved some success on related matters, including expanded access, temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and denial of a restraining order.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles of reasonableness governing costs awards, the court determined that the applicant was the party primarily successful but that her success was tempered by the respondent’s partial success and excessive motion materials.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced amount.

The accused were charged with possession of property obtained by crime exceeding $5,000 and related curfew breaches following a break and enter at a lumber store.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on the testimony of an accomplice who admitted he initially lied to police and later implicated the accused after negotiating a plea deal in exchange for a discharge.

Applying the principles underlying a Vetrovec warning, the court treated the accomplice as an unsavoury and unreliable witness whose evidence required careful scrutiny.

The alleged confirmatory evidence, including a stolen cheque found in a van and evidence of a phone call requesting use of the van, was found insufficient to independently confirm the witness’s account of the accused’s involvement.

The Crown therefore failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of assault under s. 266 of the Criminal Code after violently attacking a witness in a bathroom at a public event.

The evidence showed the accused targeted the victim because the victim had previously provided information to police about a mutual acquaintance, though the court found the Crown had not proven the intent required for the separate offence of intimidation of a justice system participant under s. 423.1.

The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors including the victim’s status as a justice system participant and the unprovoked nature of the assault, as well as mitigating factors such as the accused’s lack of criminal record, employment stability, strict compliance with lengthy bail conditions, and strong community support.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence while considering proportionality and restraint under s. 718.2, the court concluded that incarceration was unnecessary.

A suspended sentence with probation and a fine was imposed.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and to breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing robbery.

The offences arose from a violent home invasion in which several men forced entry into a residence seeking drugs and money, restrained the occupant, and confronted a man who arrived to investigate.

During the ensuing struggle another participant stabbed the victim multiple times, causing his death.

The court considered aggravating factors including the brutality of the home invasion, the death of the victim, the terror inflicted on the occupant, and the accused’s prior youth record involving violence and robbery.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s youth, guilty plea, remorse, difficult upbringing, and evidence of rehabilitation efforts while in custody.

A global penitentiary sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence was imposed.

The parties brought competing motions in a family law dispute involving child support, property issues, and whether a custody order should be made for a 17‑year‑old child with special needs.

The court determined interim child support obligations, ordering the respondent to pay guideline support for the younger child and directing both parents to contribute proportionally to post‑secondary expenses for the older child attending college.

The court also made orders regarding orthodontic expenses, insurance coverage, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and the sale of a jointly owned rental property.

The request for a custody order for the nearly 17‑year‑old child was declined, with the court emphasizing the limited practical value of custody orders for older teenagers and finding no evidence that the child’s best interests required one.