Leo W. Monaco

The applicant husband brought a motion for the immediate sale of a jointly owned cottage and exclusive possession of another cottage pending its sale.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for interim spousal and child support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and interim disbursements.

The court ordered the immediate sale of both cottages, finding no prejudice to Family Law Act claims, and granted the husband temporary exclusive possession of one cottage due to COVID-19 economic circumstances.

The court declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home pending a business valuation and ordered interim child support based on the husband's reported income rather than imputing income, given the uncertainties of the pandemic.

A costs decision following a child support application.

The applicant mother sought costs of $33,006.67 after obtaining a decision on September 25, 2012 regarding child support for her son, retroactive support, life insurance coverage, and health/dental plan coverage.

The court found the applicant was successful on the retroactive support issue but unsuccessful on the life insurance claim.

The court rejected allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the respondent father.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 to the applicant, finding this to be a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances, rather than full recovery of actual costs incurred.

The applicant mother sought child support for her child born in 2000, including retroactive support dating back to the child's birth or alternatively to August 2008.

The respondent father had never paid child support and disputed the retroactive claim.

The court applied the framework established in D.B.S. v. T.A.R., considering the reason for delay, conduct of the payor, circumstances of the child, and hardship to the payor.

While the father's failure to pay support was blameworthy, the mother's unreasonable eleven-year delay in seeking support was a significant factor.

The court awarded ongoing child support of $835 monthly, medical/dental coverage, and a limited retroactive award of $14,000 payable in four annual instalments commencing January 1, 2010.

During a hearing to determine whether bridge construction work fell within the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector, the Foundation Company of Canada requested that the Board require the Carpenters' union to qualify its witness as an expert before she could give opinion evidence.

The Board ruled it was unnecessary to do so.

The Foundation Company, supported by other parties, applied for reconsideration of this ruling, arguing the Board erred in law by confusing relevancy with admissibility and failing to exclude unqualified opinion evidence.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that under section 103(2)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, it has the statutory power to admit relevant evidence, including hearsay and opinion evidence, whether or not it is admissible in a court of law.