Harold Siegmar Albrecht

The respondent sought leave to amend her Answer to claim retroactive and ongoing child support for her adult daughter from a previous relationship.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the claim was legally untenable because the daughter was no longer a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendment pleaded facts that could support a finding that the daughter remained a child of the marriage at the material time, and that recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has called into question the strict jurisdictional bar on retroactive support for adult children.

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment in a land banking fraud scheme.

The appellant was served with the Statement of Claim on March 5, 2014, but took no steps to defend and was noted in default on August 1, 2014.

After an undefended trial, judgment was rendered against him for fraudulent misrepresentation in the amount of $276,031.06 plus pre-judgment interest, punitive damages of $25,000, and costs of $25,000.

The appellant did not learn of the judgment until September 15, 2016.

The motion judge refused to set aside the default judgment, finding that the appellant provided an inadequate explanation for his default, consciously decided not to participate, had no arguable defence on the merits, and that setting aside the judgment would undermine the integrity of the justice system.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The plaintiff credit union brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant and the individual defendant based on a small business credit agreement and a personal guarantee.

The corporate defendant conceded liability.

The individual defendant argued her liability was limited to 25% of the loan based on alleged misrepresentations by the plaintiff's advisor.

The court found the guarantee was clearly unlimited and the defendant had not read the documents or sought independent legal advice.

Summary judgment was granted against both defendants for the full outstanding amount.

The defendants were charged with six counts of contravening section 154 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) for importing motor scooters from China that violated emissions standards and lacked proper documentation.

The Crown alleged the defendants failed to comply with conditions requiring evidence of conformity and adherence to prescribed emissions standards.

The defendants argued they exercised due diligence by hiring compliance consultants, obtaining manufacturer assurances, and relying on EPA certification.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the actus reus for counts 1-3 (documentation violations) and that the defendants established due diligence as a defence for counts 4-6 (emissions violations).

All charges were dismissed.

The payor father brought a motion to change a 2004 order, seeking to terminate his spousal and child support obligations after voluntarily leaving his employment to start his own business.

The court treated the matter as a trial at first instance.

Finding that the payor was intentionally under-employed, the court imputed his income at $80,000 based on his previous earnings.

The court ordered the payor to continue paying child support for the remaining eligible child and ongoing spousal support of $750 monthly, while dismissing historical claims for section 7 expenses.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction seeking to preserve rights under a motor fuel supply agreement with the defendants.

The agreement permitted termination without notice where the plaintiff failed to make required payments.

The court applied the test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.) and found that the plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, given repeated breaches of the agreement including numerous NSF payments and failure to meet contractual obligations.

The court further held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured relief, particularly where alternative fuel suppliers could be obtained and evidence of business collapse was speculative.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.