Meredith Rady

The respondent sought a temporary order for spousal support, which the applicant opposed, arguing it was a variation of an existing interim order requiring a material change in circumstances.

The court determined that the initial consent order for spousal support was a "first temporary order" or "interim interim order" made without prejudice, intended for review upon better income information, rather than an order meant to carry until trial.

Given the significant discrepancy between the applicant's initially disclosed income and his expert-evaluated income, the court found that the material change test did not apply.

The court used the applicant's 2021 income of $373,532 and the respondent's zero income for SSAG calculation, and ordered the applicant to pay $8,570 per month in spousal support, effective June 1, 2023, but declined to make the order retroactive to January 1, 2022, leaving that for trial.

The respondent father, Shefik Jakupi, sought leave to appeal an interim order for child support and costs issued by Justice Campbell.

The original order required the father to pay interim child support of $1,321 per month for the daughter, retroactive to October 1, 2016, based on an imputed income of $158,000, and costs of $2,800.

The court dismissed the father's motion for leave to appeal, finding that the strict two-part test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure was not met.

The court concluded that it was not desirable to grant leave and that the proposed appeal did not raise matters of such importance that leave should be granted, as the underlying order was fact-specific and involved the exercise of judicial discretion.

The applicant's motion for temporary relief was dismissed, and the respondent sought costs as the successful party.

The court acknowledged the respondent's complete success but emphasized the applicant's limited ability to pay and the financial hardship faced by both parties.

Finding no unreasonable conduct by the applicant, the court fixed costs at $1,250, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable at a rate of $25 per month.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, temporary child support, and temporary spousal support.

The parties had continued to reside together in the matrimonial home despite separating over five years prior, and both were burdened by significant consumer debt.

The court dismissed the motion for exclusive possession, finding no evidence of violence or that the children's best interests were compromised by the continued cohabitation.

The claims for temporary support were also dismissed as the respondent was already paying a large share of the family's expenses.

In a family law proceeding, the court issued a supplementary endorsement confirming scheduling directions previously provided.

The trial was ordered to proceed for seven days commencing the week of November 12, 2013.

The court directed that failure by either party to obtain and deliver specified expert reports would not result in vacating the scheduled trial date.

The parties were permitted to consider amending pleadings and undertaking disclosure relating to child support and equalization, but the court emphasized that adding issues must not delay the scheduled trial.

In a civil action alleging negligent investment advice and related wrongs, the moving defendants sought directions under Rule 34.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following an adjourned examination for discovery of the plaintiff.

They argued that the examination had been improperly interrupted by excessive objections and instructions not to answer by opposing counsel.

After reviewing the transcript, the court found that although a number of objections had been raised, they did not amount to an abuse of the discovery process.

While the court criticized two instances of uncivil and sarcastic conduct by counsel during the examination, it concluded the examination had not been rendered futile and could continue rather than being restarted.

Costs were awarded to the moving defendants on a partial indemnity basis.