Garry J. Wise

The applicant father brought two motions: one to adjourn his pending parenting motion until a therapeutic counsellor's report was completed, and a Wagg motion seeking disclosure of the Crown brief from his criminal proceedings (where he was acquitted of sexual assault charges involving the children).

The respondent mother sought to have both motions dismissed.

The court granted the father's request to adjourn the parenting motion to avoid delay and costs if it needed to be heard later.

The court also granted the Wagg motion, finding it would be unfair to proceed without the documents and that the Attorney General had already screened them.

The appellant appealed a family arbitration award that terminated a previously established education fund for the parties’ children and ordered the remaining funds returned to the parents.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness, an error in determining that the youngest adult child was not a “child of the marriage” due to disability, and a failure to apply constitutional and human rights norms requiring accommodation of disability.

The court held that the arbitrator applied the correct legal principles and reasonably concluded that the appellant had not proven the adult child met the statutory definition of “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act at the relevant time.

The court also found no procedural unfairness in the arbitrator’s summary process and refused to admit fresh evidence regarding the child’s evolving educational plans.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding.

The self-represented applicant sought retroactive spousal support, interim disbursements, further disclosure, and leave to amend her application.

The respondent sought an order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home and temporary exclusive possession.

The court permitted the applicant to amend her application but dismissed her other requests, noting inconsistencies in her positions regarding the respondent's pension and retroactive support.

The court also dismissed the respondent's motion for sale and exclusive possession, finding a sale would prejudice the applicant's claim for a vesting order.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.