L. Marshall

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a long marriage.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing both lack of entitlement and inability to pay due to debt and a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that the length of the relationship and the parties’ significantly disparate incomes established a prima facie entitlement to interim support on a non‑compensatory basis.

Using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and the respondent’s pre‑separation income, the court determined the appropriate interim quantum while noting inconsistencies in the respondent’s evidence about debt obligations and discretionary spending.

On a motion for temporary parenting arrangements and child support following separation, the parties agreed to share custody but disputed the access schedule and support obligations.

The moving party sought primary residence for the young children with structured access to the responding party.

The court considered allegations of alcohol misuse, aggressive communications, and instability raised in affidavit evidence.

Concluding that a 50/50 parenting schedule would not presently serve the children’s best interests, the court ordered temporary primary residence with the moving party and a defined access schedule for the responding party, together with guideline child support.

The appellant appealed his nine-month custodial sentence for break and enter and mischief.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to his Aboriginal heritage and erred by not imposing a conditional sentence similar to his co-accused based on the parity principle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly considered Gladue factors by reducing the sentence from 15 to 9 months, and justified the disparity with the co-accused due to the co-accused's guilty plea and a lack of evidentiary foundation for comparison.