Gary A. Beaulne

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders regarding decision-making responsibility for the parties' twin children.

While most issues were settled, the parties disputed decision-making for the children's religion and spirituality.

The mother sought sole decision-making to allow the children to participate in Catholic sacraments, including First Communion, while the father objected based on unparticularized concerns about the Catholic faith.

The court granted the mother temporary sole decision-making responsibility for religion and spirituality, finding it in the children's best interests to maintain the status quo of their religious upbringing and participate fully in their faith.

The applicant wife brought an emergency, ex parte motion for a preservation order over the respondent husband's assets, primarily his recently commuted pension.

The husband had failed to disclose the details of his retirement package and the transfer of pension funds.

The court found the urgency threshold was met due to the husband's lack of transparency, but held the requested order over all assets was disproportionate.

The court granted a partial preservation order over two GICs and the matrimonial home.

No costs were awarded to the applicant because her counsel failed to give notice of the motion to the husband's active counsel.

The appellant registered a construction lien and commenced an action while it was a dissolved corporation.

It was later revived.

The motion judge vacated the lien but allowed the contract claim to continue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the lien appeal and dismissed the contract action.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant could not rely on the corporate revival provisions of the Business Corporations Act to revive its lien action because the strict time limits under the Construction Lien Act had expired during dissolution, vesting 'rights' in the defendant.

However, the Court allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed, as the limitation period had not yet expired, permitting the appellant to amend its pleadings to correct the corporate misnomer.