J.S. Poupore

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel for his sexual assault trial.

The court found that while the accused was ineligible for Legal Aid and required counsel for complex pre-trial motions under ss. 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code, he failed to establish indigence.

The court noted the accused's high level of education and combined income with his common-law partner, concluding he could afford the estimated $3,000 fee for the pre-trial motions.

The application was denied.

The bankrupt sought a discharge from bankruptcy, which was opposed by the trustee and a creditor.

The objecting creditor argued the bankrupt was dishonest, contributed to his bankruptcy by extravagant living, and failed to disclose assets.

The court found the bankrupt had transferred a property to his father at undervalue within five years of bankruptcy to defraud creditors, and failed to disclose other assets including vehicles and RRSPs.

The court suspended the discharge for two years and declared the property transfer void against the trustee.

The responding spouse brought a motion to change an existing spousal support order following retirement and reduced income.

The parties agreed that a material change in circumstances existed under s. 17(7) of the Divorce Act due to the payor’s retirement and the recipient’s inability to work because of medical issues.

The court found the recipient remained entitled to compensatory and needs‑based support given the long marriage and her role raising the children, but that the payor’s retirement justified a reduction in support.

Applying the principles in Boston v. Boston regarding double dipping and considering the recipient’s cohabitation with a new partner, the court declined to include double dipping in calculating support.

The existing order was varied to reduce spousal support to $946 per month with no retroactive adjustment.