Karl K. Beyer

The applicant wife sought a divorce and ongoing spousal support, while the respondent husband sought to terminate spousal support and child support for their two adult children.

The court found that the wife had been fully compensated for economic disadvantages arising from the marriage and had made no conscientious effort to become self-sufficient despite receiving support for over 20 years.

Spousal support was terminated.

Child support for the older child was terminated retroactively to the completion of her undergraduate degree, while child support for the younger child was reinstated to allow him to complete his college studies.

The court declined to order a retroactive repayment of child support to the husband to avoid undue hardship.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application regarding his mother's estate, raising issues about the passing of accounts, ownership of joint bank accounts, release of personal goods, an expired PPSA registration, and costs.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion or findings, noting the lack of independent corroboration for the appellant's claim to the joint accounts under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

The appeal was dismissed, save for a minor amendment to the order regarding personal goods to allow the appellant to seek further direction if necessary.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claim against the municipality for a pedestrian accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that on the uncontested facts, there was no basis to extend the municipality's statutory duty to repair under s. 284 of the Municipal Act to pedestrian traffic at the specific location of the accident.

The court noted, however, that the duty to repair is not strictly limited to areas specifically designated for pedestrian traffic.

The appellant surgeon appealed a finding of negligence after he mistakenly cut the respondent's aorta during a laparoscopic hiatus hernia operation.

The trial judge drew an inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence, rejecting the appellant's explanations of medical misadventure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or inference-drawing process.