Mark A. Russell

The respondent brought a preliminary motion requesting the court refuse to hear the appellant's appeal due to his failure to comply with trial orders regarding spousal support and security.

The Court of Appeal held that where an appellant wishes to be relieved of trial obligations pending appeal, the proper approach is to bring a stay motion.

The court adjourned the appeal, ordering that it would not be heard until the appellant paid the support arrears and posted the required security.

The applicant sought continuation of an ex parte order preserving a property owned by her in-laws and requiring discharge of a collateral mortgage registered shortly before trial in a family property dispute involving claims of constructive and resulting trust.

The court considered the interlocutory injunction test from RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General).

While the court found serious issues to be tried and a risk of irreparable harm if the mortgage fully encumbered the property, it determined that the balance of convenience favoured permitting the mortgage to remain in place subject to limits.

The court ordered that the respondents could draw no more than $250,000 on the secured line of credit pending trial and continued the certificate of pending litigation.

The preservation and mortgage discharge aspects of the prior ex parte order were set aside and no costs were awarded.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal of default judgments obtained against him in Small Claims Court for online defamation, and for a stay of execution of garnishment orders.

The court applied the Bratti test and found the appellant maintained a firm intention to appeal, reasonably explained the delay, and demonstrated the appeal had merit without prejudicing the respondents.

The court granted the extension of time and stayed the execution of the garnishment orders, finding irreparable harm would occur if wages continued to be garnished.

The appellant estate appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim against the respondent for occupation rent and nursing care expenses.

The estate alleged the respondent unlawfully refused to allow the deceased to return to the matrimonial home after a hospitalization.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of an unlawful refusal; rather, the respondent, due to her own advanced age and frail health, was simply unable to provide the necessary care.

Furthermore, the claim for medical expenses was barred by the parties' marriage contract.

The appeal was dismissed.