Gordon E. Sheiner

The moving party, Jennifer Innes, brought a motion to remove the responding party's counsel of record, alleging a disqualifying conflict of interest based on a prior solicitor-client relationship.

The court applied the MacDonald Estate test and found that while a brief solicitor-client relationship existed, the only confidential information shared had already been disclosed to the responding party prior to the retainer.

The court concluded that a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would not find a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought an originating application under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act seeking to impose a review order on the respondent's spousal support to monitor her efforts towards self-sufficiency.

The parties had a separation agreement requiring the respondent to make reasonable efforts to contribute to her own support.

The court found the respondent had made minimal efforts since separation.

Applying the principles from Leskun, the court held that a review order was appropriate given the respondent's non-compliance with the agreement.

The court ordered spousal support to continue at the current rate but imposed a review in five years, and fixed arrears owed to the respondent at $4,272.

Following a six-day family law trial involving complex property and support issues, the applicant sought $275,000 in costs.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party overall and had beaten her offers to settle.

The court also noted the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct in failing to value his business interests.

The respondent was ordered to pay $225,000 in costs to the applicant.

The parties separated after a 20-year relationship.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, including the treatment of the respondent's interest in a family trust created during an estate freeze.

The court found the respondent had sufficient control over the trust to include its value in his net family property, and declined to exclude it as a gift because the applicant was a co-beneficiary.

The court imputed corporate pre-tax income to the respondent, fixing his income at $242,148, and ordered retroactive child and spousal support.

The matrimonial home was valued at $1,000,000.

The applicant sought relief concerning an arbitration agreement and prior separation agreements, requesting that an ongoing arbitration be converted into a Superior Court proceeding or alternatively that the court appoint a replacement arbitrator after the original arbitrator’s death.

The parties submitted minutes of settlement and a draft consent order.

The court held that the Arbitration Act limits judicial intervention in matters subject to arbitration and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, including incorporating the settlement terms into a court order.

The parties had already reached minutes of settlement and could execute an amending agreement privately.

The court therefore declined to make any order while noting that the parties could return for appointment of a replacement arbitrator if necessary.