Earl Arthur Atnikov

The appellant, acting as substitute decision-maker for her incapable mother, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision ordering her to consent to a palliative plan of care.

The Board had found that the mother's condition would continue to deteriorate and that the palliative plan was necessary to allow her transfer to a chronic care facility.

On appeal, fresh evidence demonstrated that the mother had stabilized on continuous ventilation and had already been transferred to the chronic care facility without adopting the palliative plan.

The Superior Court of Justice admitted the fresh evidence, found that the evidentiary foundation of the Board's decision had fundamentally shifted, and quashed the Board's decision as unreasonable.

The appellant, acting as substitute decision-maker for her husband, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his treatment plan.

Before the appeal could be decided, the husband passed away.

The court applied the test for mootness from Borowski and determined that the appeal was moot because there was no longer a live controversy between the parties.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding that the issues were highly fact-specific and raised no questions of public importance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Doyle Salewski Inc. (DSI), as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. and Joseph Gilles Jean Claude Lacasse, brought claims against various defendants, including Victor Laschewski, for recovery of usurious interest and unlawful commissions arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme.

The defendant Laschewski brought a motion to strike DSI's claims, arguing they were statute-barred due to expired limitation periods and failed to disclose a cause of action.

DSI brought a cross-motion for leave to amend its statements of claim to explicitly plead unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion to strike, finding that the claims were not statute-barred due to the discoverability rule in bankruptcy/fraudulent schemes and that unjust enrichment was a valid cause of action.

The court granted DSI leave to amend its statements of claim.

The applicant brought a motion to compel disclosure following an earlier court order requiring the respondent to provide financial information relevant to determining income for support purposes.

The court found that the respondent had failed to comply with the portion of the order requiring confirmation from a bank regarding the existence of any additional business accounts.

The respondent was ordered to provide further documentation confirming whether any additional business accounts existed.

While the court found compliance with respect to disclosure about a car allowance, it ordered supporting documentation for expense account entries to allow proper assessment of their reasonableness.

The court also held that the applicant was entitled to adjourn the trial to properly evaluate the respondent’s financial means.

The applicant brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to job loss and reliance on Employment Insurance.

The respondent opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to transfer ownership of a vehicle.

The court found a material change in circumstances and reduced the applicant's spousal support obligation from $1,500 to $640 per month.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment regarding the vehicle was dismissed as there were triable issues regarding contributions to the vehicle.

The respondent brought a motion for interim spousal support in a family law proceeding.

The court considered the parties’ income positions and competing Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines calculations.

The judge found the evidence supported the payor spouse’s annual employment income of approximately $56,000–$58,000 and imputed $7,500 annual income to the recipient spouse.

Considering the length of the relationship, the recipient’s modest financial needs, and her interim occupancy of the matrimonial home, the court ordered interim spousal support of $1,500 per month retroactive to May 25, 2014.

Arrears of $3,000 were to be paid from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

A costs decision following a family law motion addressing retroactive child support, ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and repayment of alleged overpaid support.

The respondent father was unsuccessful in seeking reimbursement for overpaid child support but succeeded in obtaining final termination of child support.

The applicant mother was unsuccessful in seeking retroactive and ongoing support.

Applying Rules 24(1), 24(4), and 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court found the father partially successful and entitled to a contribution to his costs.

Considering the parties’ conduct, the timing of a settlement offer, the complexity of issues, and the parties’ financial circumstances, the court ordered the mother to pay fixed costs.

The moving party sought termination of child support for an adult child aged 22 and repayment of alleged overpayments, arguing the child had effectively abandoned post‑secondary education and ceased to be a “child of the marriage.” The responding party brought a countermotion seeking retroactive child support arrears based on the moving party’s increased income and requested ongoing support, asserting the child remained dependent due to interrupted studies and alleged mental health challenges.

The court found insufficient evidence of a diagnosed mental illness and determined the child had not meaningfully pursued post‑secondary education for several years and had withdrawn from contact with the moving party.

The court concluded the child had ceased to be a “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act and terminated child support immediately.

However, the court declined to order repayment of alleged overpayments or arrears, effectively balancing underpayments and past support provided.

The applicant father brought an application for custody or access to his seven-year-old son, whom he had not seen in four years.

The father brought a motion to enforce an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer to prepare a report, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the father's application.

The court found that the child had significant special needs, including ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder, requiring a parent with excellent self-regulation.

Given the father's history of criminal activity, substance abuse, and ADHD, and his failure to provide evidence of his capacity to meet the child's needs, the court granted the mother's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the father's motion.