Lesley Burke

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that the parties separated on August 5, 2018, and an order dismissing the responding party's claims for spousal support.

The court found that the parties separated on February 20, 2019, based on the objective evidence of their continued relationship and attempts at reconciliation.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding spousal support, holding that support issues should be determined at trial alongside property and equalization issues to avoid inconsistent findings and ensure a comprehensive analysis.

The applicant father and respondent mother disagreed on whether their six-year-old child should return to in-person learning or continue online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the risks of exposure to COVID-19, the lack of underlying health conditions for the child, the child's social development needs, and the safety measures implemented by the school.

The court concluded that the benefits of in-person learning outweighed the risks and ordered the child to return to school in person.

No costs were awarded due to the novelty of the issue.

The parties engaged in a family arbitration that resulted in an award ordering the respondent to pay $450,000 in lump sum spousal support and $185,000 in costs.

The respondent appealed the award and brought a motion to stay its enforcement pending the appeal, while the applicant moved to dismiss or stay the appeal due to the respondent's failure to pay the award.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the respondent failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given the arbitrator's findings of egregious financial non-disclosure by the respondent.

The court declined to dismiss the appeal as an abuse of process but ordered that the respondent must comply with the support order by a specified date, failing which the applicant could move to dismiss the appeal.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, robbery, assault causing bodily harm, and aggravated assault against a sex trade worker.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding the events leading up to the physical altercation to be plausible and the complainant's evidence to be unreliable.

The court held that the accused was justified in using force to retrieve his keys from the complainant under s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code, and that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally hit the complainant with his van.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.