Kimberly Kenney

The defendant brought a motion to amend its statement of defence to add counterclaims against the plaintiffs, their counsel, and a court reporting service.

The counterclaims alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, abuse of process, invasion of privacy, and other causes of action arising from alleged misrepresentation regarding document service and the billing of discovery examination fees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed counterclaims did not advance legally tenable causes of action and that the issues raised were not properly the subject of a counterclaim in this proceeding.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his obligation to pay spousal support following his retirement.

The applicant, who was in default and did not file responding materials, receives spousal support as her primary source of income.

The court found that while retirement constituted a material change in circumstances warranting variation of support, termination was not appropriate given the long-term nature of the marriage and the applicant's ongoing financial need.

The court reduced spousal support from $3,000 to $1,730 per month, calculated using realistic income projections from the respondent's retirement savings, government benefits, and inheritance funds.

The court also vacated the requirement to maintain employment benefits but ordered that spousal support obligations form a first charge on the respondent's estate.

The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer the action into the Simplified Procedure after having already filed the trial record.

The court dismissed the motion, refusing to grant leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances since the trial record was filed, noting that the plaintiff knew the claim's value was within the Simplified Procedure's increased monetary jurisdiction well before filing the trial record.

The court also considered the prejudice to the defendant, whose litigation strategy was based on a conventional jury trial, and emphasized the substantive right to a jury trial.

The plaintiff's primary motivation was deemed to be concerns about costs exposure, which was not a sufficient basis for granting leave.