Alfred A. Mamo

The appellant husband appealed a divorce judgment regarding property issues, specifically the trial judge's findings that he held shares and a shareholders' loan in trust for the respondent wife, and that the wife could trace her inheritance into those shares and an investment account to exclude them from her net family property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the presumption of resulting trust or her conclusion that the wife's inheritance could be traced into the corporate shares and investment account.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

The court reviewed the submissions of counsel and awarded the respondent costs fixed in the amount of $20,000, all inclusive.

The appellant husband appealed a Superior Court decision setting aside an arbitrator's award that had reduced his spousal and child support obligations.

The reviewing judge found that the arbitrator's refusal to grant the wife an adjournment after the husband produced a significantly altered financial statement on the morning of the hearing was unfair.

The Court of Appeal upheld the reviewing judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings and agreeing that the denial of the adjournment prevented the wife from properly understanding and challenging the husband's financial evidence.

The applicant, an intervener in the court below, brought a motion to be added as a party under Rule 18(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to seek leave to appeal.

The underlying judgment declared that a child could have three parents.

None of the original parties or the Attorney General sought to appeal the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion, holding that the applicant lacked a specific personal interest in the outcome of the litigation and failed to meet the test for public interest standing.

The appellant, who was in a same-sex union with the biological mother, sought a declaration of parentage for a child conceived with the assistance of a male friend.

The biological father remained involved in the child's life, meaning an adoption order would sever his parental rights.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Children's Law Reform Act only contemplates one mother and one father, a legislative gap existed regarding children born to same-sex parents through reproductive technology.

The Court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the appellant a mother of the child, recognizing three legal parents to protect the child's best interests.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage during which they operated a tobacco farming business.

The husband appealed the trial judge's order requiring him to pay spousal support out of his capital while the wife retrained, and challenged several aspects of the post-separation accounting.

The Court of Appeal upheld the spousal support order, finding no error in principle in requiring both parties to encroach on capital to share the burden of the wife's retraining.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the post-separation accounting, varying orders related to the sale of soya beans, tobacco quota rental proceeds, and NISA accounts.