Jillian Lenna Daisy Burford-Grinnell

The respondent, Dixie Lee Ontario Ltd., served a notice of appeal out of time and without seeking an extension.

A chambers judge subsequently granted an extension of time to serve and file the notice of appeal.

The moving party brought a motion to review the chambers judge's order.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal unmeritorious, as the motion judge had expressly addressed and rejected the respondent's arguments regarding breach and repudiation of the guarantee contract.

Additionally, the respondent lacked independent status to proceed with the appeal given the terms of a receivership order that had been granted over its assets.

The motion was granted and the extension order was set aside.

The plaintiff, Maria Struik, sought enforcement relief by way of a motion to appoint herself as receiver over the assets of Dixie Lee Ontario Ltd. (DLOL) and to prohibit the transfer or encumbrance of DLOL's assets.

The defendants, DLOL and Noele Murano, did not object to the asset prohibition but opposed the plaintiff's appointment as receiver, arguing that ordinary execution remedies were sufficient and that the plaintiff might be prejudiced by the appointment due to past allegations.

The court, exercising its discretion under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 60.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found it just and convenient to appoint the plaintiff as receiver, citing her extensive experience with Dixie Lee Chicken operations, the complexity of the assets, the additional expense of a private receiver, and a history of non-compliance and misleading information from the defendants.

The court granted the order as sought by the plaintiff.

This trial decision addresses complex family law issues following a long marriage, including child support, special expenses, and property equalization.

The court determined the appropriate income for child support calculations by imputing a portion of the applicant's employment expenses and excluding a non-recurring RRSP withdrawal.

It also clarified the duration of child support for an adult child pursuing education.

For property equalization, the court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home and a lump-sum payment from the applicant's Canadian Forces pension to the respondent, grossed-up for the respondent's future tax liability.

Claims for past special expenses were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to dispense with the respondent's consent to adoption.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs due to the respondent's delays, while the respondent sought costs as the successful party in the underlying motion.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules and jurisprudence, found that despite the respondent's success, his unreasonable behaviour caused unnecessary delays and costs for the applicant.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The applicant stepfather sought an order to dispense with the biological father's consent for the adoption of the child, C.S.L.K., pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act.

The biological mother and child consented to the adoption, but the biological father objected, wishing to be part of his son's life.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother had actively attempted to exclude the father from the child's life and that it was in the child's best interests to be afforded the opportunity to know his biological father and paternal family, as the adoption would irrevocably sever these ties without evidence that the child's current stable environment would be disrupted otherwise.