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the support order was filed with the Family Responsibility Office, which has exclusive enforcement jurisdiction unless withdrawn.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 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.

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.