H. Hunter Phillips

The parties lived in a common-law relationship for 12 years.

After separation, the respondent was awarded $996,500 for unjust enrichment based on the trial judge's blurring of the 'value received' and 'value survived' approaches to quantify her contribution to the appellant's business success.

The appellant appealed the quantification method.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in blurring the two approaches and that the correct method was to determine the 'value received' and perform a quantum meruit calculation.

The award was set aside and the matter remitted for a new trial on quantification.

The appellant husband, a professional hockey coach, appealed a spousal support order of $27,000 per month.

During the marriage, the parties had a practice of saving a significant portion of the husband's income in a retirement compensation arrangement due to the instability of his profession.

The trial judge included a savings component in the spousal support award to allow the respondent wife to maintain the marital standard of living, which included saving for the future.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the award did not constitute an impermissible redistribution of capital, as the wife had become entirely dependent on the husband for both daily necessities and future financial security.

The appellant husband, a professional hockey coach, appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $27,000 per month in spousal support to the respondent wife.

During the marriage, the husband directed a large portion of his high income into a retirement compensation arrangement to secure the family's financial future.

The appellant argued the support award, which exceeded the wife's immediate day-to-day needs, constituted an impermissible redistribution of capital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the savings pattern was a substantial component of the family's standard of living and the award appropriately met the wife's ongoing need for future financial security.

The appellant father appealed an order granting him limited, supervised access to his three-year-old son of one visit per year.

The application judge had restricted access due to the father's history of domestic violence, failure to exercise previous access, and the child's young age.

The Court of Appeal upheld the requirement for supervised access to establish a relationship but found one visit per year too restrictive.

The court varied the order to allow the father to exercise supervised access three times per year for a seven-day period each time.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint regarding the discharge of a key union organizer.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The Board found the petition was not proven to be voluntary due to the presence of a management member during its signing, and certified the union without a vote.

Regarding the discharge, the Board found the employer proved the employee was fired for an unauthorized after-hours entry onto company property, not for his union activities.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.