Eric D. McCooeye

The appellant husband appealed a Divisional Court order that varied a time-limited spousal support order to an indefinite, reviewable order.

The trial judge had originally ordered the husband to pay spousal support for three years, finding the wife capable of achieving economic self-sufficiency.

The Divisional Court overturned this, concluding the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the wife's job search efforts.

The Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal, finding the trial judge had properly considered and weighed the evidence without palpable and overriding error.

The trial judge's original time-limited support order was reinstated.

The appellant husband appealed and the respondent wife cross-appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support, equalization, and the disposition of shares.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act to extend time, nor in the spousal support award.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decision under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act to include only the growth in value of the matrimonial home ($11,100) in the husband's net family property, given the wife's lack of contribution to the home.

The order for disposition of Algoma Steel shares in specie was also upheld.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant challenged a Rule 21 declaration that a snowmobile is not an "automobile" within s. 224(1) of the Insurance Act.

The appeal court held it had jurisdiction because the order finally disposed of an issue of law and was neither an order for payment of money nor one dismissing such a claim.

On the merits, the court adopted the motion judge's reasoning that the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act incorporates the Highway Traffic Act definition of "motor vehicle", which expressly excludes motorized snow vehicles.

As a result, a snowmobile does not fall within the statutory definition of "automobile" for Part VI of the Insurance Act, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.