Mark Allan Feigenbaum

The appellant, Elaine Nairne, appealed a trial judge's order regarding spousal support quantum and duration, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the significant income disparity and differing marital contributions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's holistic assessment of the spousal support award, which included a substantial interest-free mortgage benefit to the appellant on the matrimonial home.

The court affirmed the principle of significant deference to trial judges in spousal support decisions, while noting that the trial judge's approach to assessing compensatory and needs-based entitlement was arguably narrow.

A minor modification was made to the order regarding the specific employer reference for the respondent's retirement.

The moving party husband brought a motion to change a final spousal support order, seeking to terminate his support obligation after retiring early at age 55.

He claimed his retirement was involuntary due to physical limitations from his physically demanding job, though he provided no corroborating medical evidence.

The responding party wife opposed the motion, arguing the retirement was voluntary.

The court found the husband's testimony credible and held that his involuntary retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered a reduction in spousal support effective the date of his retirement, based on his reduced pension income.

The appellant, a US resident corporation providing consulting services, appealed an income tax assessment for its 2016 taxation year.

The Minister assessed the appellant on the basis that it had a deemed services permanent establishment in Canada under the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty, having provided services for 183 days or more in a twelve-month period.

The appellant argued that days counted in a previous unassessed year could not be counted again.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a 2015 assessment and noting the appellant conceded it provided services for at least 183 days in the relevant period.

The appellant, a non-resident of Canada and former general manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, was terminated without cause and received salary continuation in 2015 and 2016.

The Minister reassessed the appellant, asserting that paragraph 115(2)(c.1) of the Income Tax Act deemed him to be employed in Canada, making the entire salary continuation taxable in Canada, subject to a discretionary proration.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that paragraph 115(2)(c.1) did not apply to the salary continuation under a single employment contract where services were no longer performed in Canada.

The appellant's Canadian tax liability was properly based on the actual days spent performing residual duties in Canada in 2015 and 2016.

The appellant appealed a decision ordering her two children to remain in the permanent care of their stepfather/father.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by finding a risk of emotional harm without expert evidence, and by failing to adequately consider her improved circumstances and the respondent's criminal history.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the need for protection had already been established on consent, and the trial judge's finding regarding the risk of emotional harm was well-supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.