D. Reid

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The central issues at trial were the validity of a prenuptial 'Family Agreement', a claim for unjust enrichment regarding home renovations, ownership of the family dog, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the Family Agreement to be a valid and binding domestic contract, which provided a juristic reason defeating the applicant's unjust enrichment claim.

The court ordered the family dog to remain with the applicant and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent at $43,547.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the primary residence of the parties' 11-year-old child from the respondent mother in Ontario to himself in British Columbia.

The father had moved to B.C. in 2017, which constituted a material change in circumstances.

The child expressed a consistent and genuine desire to live with her father during the school year and her mother during the summer.

A Voice of the Child report confirmed the child's wishes were independent and not the result of coaching.

The court found both parents capable and loving, but gave significant weight to the child's clear and realistic wishes given her age and maturity.

The motion was granted, and the child's primary residence was changed to the father.

The moving party father sought to vary a 2008 child support order, requesting a retroactive adjustment to 2009 when the children began living in a shared parenting arrangement, and reimbursement for overpayments.

The court found a material change in circumstances but limited the retroactive adjustment to three years prior to the motion due to the father's delay in pursuing the matter.

The court ordered the responding party mother to pay $6,000 in retroactive support and adjusted ongoing support obligations to reflect the children's attendance at post-secondary institutions away from home.

The mother's request to extend support obligations to second or third degrees was denied.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to add the estate of a deceased youth as a defendant, add the deceased rescuer through a litigation administrator as a plaintiff, increase damages, and have related actions tried together.

The court considered Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the doctrine of special circumstances under the Trustee Act permitting addition of parties after expiry of the limitation period.

Applying authorities including Joseph v Paramount Canada’s Wonderland and Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services v Penna Estate, the court found special circumstances and no non‑compensable prejudice to the proposed defendant estate.

The court also found the presumption of prejudice rebutted given the existence of related proceedings and prior involvement of the estate in litigation arising from the same incident.

Leave to amend the claim and add the parties was granted and the related actions were ordered to be tried together.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts involving sexual offences against family members.

One offence involved repeated sexual assaults against the accused’s son over a six‑year period when the child was between the ages of 10 and 16.

The second offence involved sexual exploitation of the accused’s granddaughter when she was approximately 12 years old.

The court considered aggravating factors including trans‑generational abuse, breach of trust, multiple victims, and the accused’s prior criminal record, alongside mitigating factors such as advanced age, poor health, and the guilty plea.

Applying the principles of denunciation and general deterrence under the Criminal Code, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death, impaired driving causing death, and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg causing death following a single motor vehicle rollover.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the driver.

The court heard evidence from civilian witnesses, police, and expert witnesses on collision reconstruction and occupant kinematics.

The court rejected the defence expert's opinion that the deceased was the driver and accepted the Crown's expert evidence, along with civilian testimony and physical evidence, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.