J. Chaimovitz

The applicants brought two motions: one to vacate a longstanding non‑dissipation order secured against their property and another seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal an interlocutory mistrial order declaring a mistrial after thirteen days of trial.

The court considered the test under Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the mistrial decision raised serious and important issues regarding whether trial length and scheduling constraints could justify terminating a trial.

The court granted both the extension of time and leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal open to serious debate and of significance to the administration of justice.

The court also vacated the non‑dissipation order, concluding that the evidentiary basis for the order had been discredited and that there was no ongoing risk of asset dissipation warranting such security.

Following a 25‑year marriage, the applicant sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support after a partial settlement resolved property issues.

The respondent had relocated to Spain for the same employer at a similar base salary but with lower overall earnings due to different overtime compensation policies.

The applicant argued the relocation constituted intentional underemployment and that support should be based on the respondent’s former Canadian income.

The court held that the move to Spain was reasonable and did not amount to intentional underemployment.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and imputing income to the applicant during and after her paralegal training, the court ordered retroactive and ongoing spousal support and required the respondent to maintain life insurance naming the applicant as beneficiary.