Jennifer Jordana Milich Wall

The applicant initiated garnishment proceedings to enforce spousal support arrears and ongoing payments based on a Divorce Order.

The respondent disputed the garnishment, arguing the support quantum varied annually per the order and that garnishment caused hardship.

The court found both parties acted precipitously.

It ruled that the respondent should not have unilaterally reduced support but also that garnishment was not available to the applicant because the support order was filed with the Family Responsibility Office, which has exclusive enforcement jurisdiction unless withdrawn.

The court also clarified the income calculation for support purposes and ordered the preparation and filing of appropriate Support Deduction Orders.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the applicant father brought a motion to compel the respondent mother's father and boyfriend to attend for oral questioning as non-parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the strict criteria under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules, as questioning non-parties is a last resort and the information sought was either irrelevant or available from the respondent herself.

The respondent's father was, however, ordered to provide an affidavit regarding specific financial gifts and a vehicle transfer.

The applicant brought a motion to change long‑standing child and spousal support obligations arising from a 1997 divorce judgment.

The applicant sought termination of spousal support and reduction of child support for an adult dependent child with disabilities who continued to reside with the respondent.

The court held that the child remained a “child of the marriage” and applied s. 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, considering government disability benefits and program funding in assessing the child’s needs.

The court reduced the monthly child support obligation to reflect the child’s ODSP income and other subsidies.

The request to terminate or vary spousal support was dismissed because no material change justified altering the existing order.

In CCAA proceedings involving several related aerospace entities, the court considered a motion by the court-appointed monitor seeking approval of an adjudication process and determinations regarding claims asserted against a directors’ and officers’ charge.

The Ministry of the Environment filed claims for environmental remediation costs arising from pre‑filing contamination and anticipated a future director’s order against former directors and officers.

A law firm representing certain directors and officers also filed contingent contribution and indemnity claims.

The court held that the environmental claims and related indemnity claims did not constitute liabilities incurred by directors and officers after the commencement of the CCAA proceedings within the meaning of s. 11.51 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

Allowing such claims to access the directors’ charge would improperly alter creditor priorities and indirectly elevate unsecured environmental claims over a secured lender.

A municipality brought a motion seeking directions regarding service of a notice of application for a declaration under the Beds of Navigable Waters Act concerning whether a stream crossing the respondents’ property was navigable at the time of the original Crown grant in 1831.

The respondents asserted that the stream created a natural severance of their land and that the stream bed was unpatented Crown land.

The court held that the only issue in the application was whether the waterway was navigable at the time of the Crown grant, which affected only the parties to the proceeding.

Upstream and downstream landowners would need to litigate the issue independently based on their own Crown grants.

Accordingly, no additional parties were required to be served, and directions were provided regarding the order of proof at trial.

During CCAA proceedings involving an aerospace manufacturer, former directors and officers sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the provincial environmental regulator from issuing a Director’s Order under the Environmental Protection Act pending determination of a related motion concerning adjudicative procedures for claims in the CCAA process.

The moving party argued that a “status quo” exception permitted injunctive relief against the Crown to preserve the court’s process.

The court held that the Proceedings Against the Crown Act generally bars injunctions against the Crown and that the asserted status quo exception did not apply because there was no government wrongdoing and the Environmental Protection Act provides a complete statutory scheme for issuing and appealing environmental orders.

The court further held that the moving party failed to meet the RJR‑Macdonald test, including establishing a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought approval of an asset sale transaction and related vesting order.

The provincial environmental regulator opposed the transaction and argued that a pre‑filing environmental remediation order was regulatory in nature and not subject to the CCAA stay.

The court held that where an insolvent debtor with no ongoing operations would necessarily incur financial obligations to comply with the environmental order, the order effectively enforced a payment obligation and was therefore stayed.

The court further held that the regulator could file a claim for remediation costs but could not use regulatory orders to create a super‑priority inconsistent with the CCAA priority scheme.

The proposed asset sale was approved as the result of a comprehensive marketing process and in the best interests of stakeholders.

The applicant was successful in her child support and section 7 expenses claim.

This costs decision addresses the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful party.

The court found that the applicant acted reasonably and made exhaustive efforts to settle, while the respondent behaved unreasonably and inflexibly.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixing the fees component at $9,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, plus an outstanding costs order of $1,000.00 from October 4, 2011.

The applicant sought to determine the respondent father's income for child support purposes, his contribution to extraordinary expenses for the children's gymnastics, dance, and orthodontic treatment, and retroactive support from the date of separation (August 1, 2008) through December 31, 2009.

The respondent claimed significantly reduced income following his employer's bankruptcy in 2009 and the formation of a new business partnership.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed and imputed annual income of $80,000 based on his prior earning capacity and credible marketable skills.

The court ordered ongoing table support and section 7 expense contributions, with the parties to share extraordinary expenses equally going forward.

Arrears were not cancelled and were to be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office.