Earl Arthur Atnikov

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.

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mental illness and determined the child had not meaningfully pursued post‑secondary education for several years and had withdrawn from contact with the moving party.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.