Joel Phillip Freedman

The applicant sought interim spousal support and an order for a business evaluation of the respondent's personal service corporation, Finnie Consulting.

The court found the applicant unable to obtain work due to age, educational background, and health issues, while the respondent maintained a stable income.

Interim spousal support of $2,800 per month was ordered, effective January 1, 2017.

The court granted leave for the applicant to obtain an opinion on the corporation's value, rejecting the respondent's argument that it was a joint asset requiring shared evaluation costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7 for approval of a $6,625,000 settlement in a medical negligence action arising from severe birth injuries to the minor plaintiff.

The court approved the overall settlement amount but found the solicitor's proposed contingency fee of over $1.5 million to be unreasonable given the time expended and the results achieved.

The court reduced the legal fees to $1,000,000 and also reduced the proposed allocation of funds to the parents' Family Law Act claims to ensure the minor plaintiff received adequate funds for his lifelong care needs.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order granting a Mareva injunction and a Certificate of Pending Litigation against his home.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant after being shot by him.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order because the requirements for a Certificate of Pending Litigation were not met, and the evidence of dissipation of assets for the Mareva injunction was based on the defendant's ill-health and need to pay legal fees rather than an intent to avoid judgment.

The court also found the matter to be of sufficient importance as the order expanded the circumstances in which such injunctions are granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, noting the Tribunal's strong privative clause.

The court found that the Tribunal reasonably relied on the lack of temporal linkage between the applicant's employment and his diagnosis, as well as credibility findings and medical evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no order as to costs.