Cameron Adams-Webber

The parties separated after a 24-year marriage during which the respondent built a highly successful software company and the applicant was a stay-at-home parent.

Post-separation, the respondent unilaterally redeemed the applicant's shares in the company and sold the business for $2.2 million without notice to the applicant.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that an equal division would be unconscionable given the respondent's unilateral actions, lack of disclosure, and the windfall from the sale.

The court awarded the applicant an unequal division payment of $174,920.28.

The court also imputed investment income to the respondent and employment income to the applicant for the purposes of calculating retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support.

The defendants brought a motion seeking orders to compel the plaintiff, Mr. Smith, to attend a defence vocational assessment and a further oral discovery examination.

The plaintiffs opposed these requests and brought a cross-motion for document disclosure and undertakings.

The court granted the defendants' requests, finding that a vocational assessment was necessary for a fair comparison with the plaintiff's expert, and a further discovery was warranted due to the plaintiffs' belatedly disclosed theory of causation linking a second hand injury to the first.

The court also addressed the application of Rule 48.04, granting leave for the motion to proceed, and reserved on costs.

The applicant, a health care aide, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for 104 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing she could perform alternative employment.

The arbitrator found the insurer's vocational assessments relied on erroneous assumptions about the applicant's education and skills.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment and awarded ongoing benefits.

Additionally, the arbitrator ordered a special award of 50 per cent of outstanding benefits, finding the insurer unreasonably withheld payments by ignoring credible evidence of the applicant's limitations.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision regarding his residual earning capacity following a motorcycle accident.

The appellant argued that the arbitrator erred in her interpretation of the phrase 'exists in the area in which the person lives' by considering employment outside his immediate municipality, and that she erred in preferring the REC DAC's conclusions over his own experts.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the arbitrator's flexible interpretation of the search area, which was supported by the appellant's own expert evidence.

The Delegate also found no basis to interfere with the arbitrator's weighing of the evidence and rejected the appellant's late allegations of impropriety against the REC DAC.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and received income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated these benefits, and the parties disputed the applicant's residual earning capacity.

Following a residual earning capacity assessment, the arbitrator determined the applicant was capable of working full-time as an electronics assembler, setting his residual earning capacity at $268.49 per week.

The arbitrator also held that the insurer was required to pay income replacement benefits until 14 days after the issuance of a valid assessment report, as the initial report was invalid and did not establish a failure to co-operate.

The applicant's request for a special award due to delayed payment of interim benefits was dismissed.