I. F. Leach

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage, leaving two young daughters in the primary care of the applicant mother.

The respondent father sought joint custody and shared residence, while the applicant sought sole custody.

The court found that the parties' high level of conflict and inability to communicate made joint custody unworkable, awarding sole custody to the applicant.

The court also modified the access schedule to provide more stability for the children.

Additionally, the court imputed income to the respondent based on his undeclared earnings as a sports referee, setting his income for child support purposes at $90,000, and ordered him to contribute to section 7 daycare expenses.

During a product liability jury trial, the defendants requested that the jury be charged on the doctrine of spoliation because the plaintiffs discarded the broken pieces of the cookware that allegedly caused the injury.

The court declined to charge the jury on spoliation, finding no evidence that the plaintiffs intentionally destroyed the evidence to affect ongoing or contemplated litigation.

The plaintiffs discarded the broken pieces shortly after the accident without contemplating a lawsuit.

The appellant, a high school student, appealed his conviction for assault arising from an incident where he attempted to retrieve his confiscated cell phone from a teacher.

The trial judge convicted the appellant by relying on section 38(2) of the Criminal Code, which deems a trespasser who persists in taking property to commit an assault without justification.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice held that section 38(2) is intended to restrict the availability of defences, not to create an independent offence.

The court found the trial judge erred in law by using section 38(2) as a sword rather than a shield, and by failing to properly analyze the elements of assault under section 265(1)(b).

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, fleeing police, and assaulting a police officer, arguing that the trial judge's finding on identity was unreasonable.

The sole issue at trial was whether the appellant was the driver of the ATV involved in the incident.

The trial judge relied on the eyewitness identification by a police officer who had prior familiarity with the appellant and observed him face-to-face during the altercation.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's application of the principles regarding eyewitness identification.

The court found that the trial judge properly assessed the reliability of the identification evidence and that the verdict was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court-appointed receiver for an insolvent boat manufacturing company sought approval to assign the company's $20 million lawsuit against a supplier to the daughter of the company's deceased principal.

The supplier opposed the assignment, arguing the receiver failed to obtain an Order to Continue under Rule 11 and that the process was unfair because the supplier was not given an opportunity to submit a competing offer.

The court approved the assignment, applying the Soundair principles, finding that the receiver acted reasonably and commercially sensibly in accepting the offer after the supplier had repeatedly indicated it would only settle for a dismissal without costs.

The court also ordered that the financial details of the offers remain sealed to prevent prejudice in the ongoing litigation.

The applicant sought to terminate his spousal support obligations under a separation agreement after involuntarily losing his job and securing new employment at minimum wage, reducing his income by half.

The respondent, who was disabled and unable to work, argued for a reduced but continued support amount, suggesting the applicant draw on his equalized assets if necessary.

The court found a material change in circumstances and applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, noting the applicant's income fell below the $20,000 floor.

The court held the applicant lacked the ability to pay from his income and declined to order him to liquidate his remaining retirement assets, which would constitute impermissible double dipping.

The application to terminate support was granted.