Dr. Turner

This trial judgment addresses spousal and child support claims following a long-term marriage.

The court determined the reasonableness of the respondent husband's early retirement, declining to impute his pre-retirement income due to mental health and caregiving responsibilities for a disabled child.

The court imputed a modest part-time income to the husband and a modest investment income to the applicant wife from her equalization payment.

It rejected the applicant's claim for retroactive spousal support and the concept of "double-recovery" from the husband's pension, finding the husband to be in greater financial hardship.

Prospective spousal support was awarded at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines based on the imputed incomes.

Child support for the adult child was terminated.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter after fatally shooting a trespasser who was breaking into his truck in the middle of the night.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 4 years.

The court assessed the offender's moral blameworthiness, noting the use of a loaded firearm with an after-market turkey choke, but also considering the offender's lack of criminal record, strong community support, and genuine remorse.

The court rejected the defence's characterization of the incident as 'near self-defence' but acknowledged the offender's perceived lack of alternatives.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.

The litigation guardian for a plaintiff previously declared a person under disability brought a motion under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking court approval of a settlement dismissing the action without costs.

The plaintiff opposed the settlement and sought removal of the litigation guardian, asserting he was no longer under disability.

The court reviewed psychiatric evidence and the plaintiff’s conduct during the proceedings and found he remained incapable of appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of litigation decisions.

The court further concluded the proposed settlement was in the plaintiff’s best interests given limitation issues, weak evidentiary support, and significant litigation risk.

The motion to remove the litigation guardian was denied and the settlement was approved.