Jason Goodman

This endorsement addresses multiple motions in a family law proceeding.

The court reviewed the continuation of a temporary spousal support order for a personal care assistant (PCA) and decided on two Form 14B motions for leave to bring further motions.

The Respondent sought leave to compel production of the Applicant's entire medical file, which was denied due to disproportionality and lack of necessity.

The Applicant sought leave for several reliefs, including striking affidavits, a restraining order, and interim disbursements.

The court dismissed most of the Applicant's requests for leave but granted leave for a motion for interim costs, recognizing the complexity of the Respondent's financial affairs and the need to "level the playing field." The court also clarified its ongoing case management role.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, seeking imputation of $200,000 income to the respondent, increased life insurance, disclosure orders, and costs.

The respondent, claiming unemployment and disability, opposed the imputation and other requests.

The court imputed an income of $74,977 to the respondent, ordered child support of $700 per month, and a 67/33 split for section 7 expenses.

The existing $100,000 life insurance policy was maintained, and the respondent was ordered to provide outstanding disclosure.

Costs for previous conferences were fixed at $10,000, to be apportioned by the trial judge, and the applicant was awarded $5,000 in costs for the motion.

The applicant sought an order addressing the income tax consequences of a temporary spousal support order previously made.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a lump sum equal to the applicant's tax liability on the periodic spousal support received in 2018.

The court also directed a review of the ongoing necessity and cost of the applicant's 24/7 personal care assistant.

The Minister of Finance appealed an arbitrator's preliminary award concerning an automobile insurance policy.

Echelon General Insurance Company had attempted to cancel a six-month policy for non-payment, but the cancellation was invalid due to non-compliance with the notice requirements of s. 236 of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator ruled the policy expired at the end of its term, not extended by s. 236.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that s. 236(5) unambiguously states a contract of insurance remains in force until the statutory notice provisions for renewal or non-renewal are complied with.

The court found that Echelon's policy was not properly cancelled and therefore remained in force at the time of the accident, overriding common law contract principles regarding policy expiry.

This endorsement addresses procedural matters in an appeal concerning child support and s.7 expenses.

The court scheduled a settlement conference prior to the appeal hearing, emphasizing the exchange of offers to settle.

It also issued an order allowing for a paperless/electronic appeal, with counsel responsible for ensuring technology is in place, and requiring a paper copy of the respondent's factum.