Patrick Kraemer

The plaintiffs sought costs for a motion to strike the defendants' affidavits, which resulted in mixed success as the court instead provided directions for examinations to proceed by video conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court declined to award costs to either party for that motion, noting both sides acted in good faith in a novel situation.

The plaintiffs were awarded $300 in costs for a separate motion that the defendants had abandoned.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' affidavits and motion record filed in support of a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The plaintiffs argued the affidavits should be struck because the defendants refused to attend in-person cross-examinations, citing COVID-19 health concerns.

The plaintiffs also argued the motion should be struck because it was brought by counsel retained by the former lawyer's insurer.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding the elderly defendants had a legitimate health concern justifying video conference examinations, and that counsel had standing to act on their behalf.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals from his questioning.

The applicant also sought orders requiring the respondent to obtain an appraisal of the matrimonial home, a business valuation, and an income report.

The court ordered the respondent to fulfill the undertakings and answer the questions, noting his obligation to provide accurate valuations for his assets.

The respondent was ordered to produce the real estate opinion he relied on and to retain a Chartered Business Valuator at his own expense.

The request for an income report was dismissed as disproportionate at this stage.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a final family law order for child support, section 7 expenses, and costs by garnishing the respondent's Retirement Life Income Fund (RLIF).

The court held that under section 66(4) of the Pension Benefits Act, the amount subject to execution for support orders is limited to 50% of the money payable to the respondent in a given year.

The court ordered the respondent to elect the maximum annual withdrawal from his RLIF and direct 50% of the net amount to the applicant until the arrears and $30,000 in fixed costs are satisfied.

The applicant's request for an advance order on future section 7 expenses was dismissed.

The parties separated shortly after the respondent's employment was terminated.

He received a severance package that included common law damages and Employment Standards Act (ESA) severance.

The trial judge held that the ESA severance portion had fully accrued before the marriage and was therefore property owned by the respondent on the date of marriage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal on this issue, holding that an employee has no right or entitlement to ESA severance until their employment is terminated without notice.

Therefore, the uncrystallized ESA severance was not property owned by the respondent on the date of marriage.

The appeal was dismissed on all other grounds relating to business valuation, household items, and imputed income.