Michaela Newman

The court dismissed the applicant mother's motion for interim release of her share of net sale proceeds from the former family residence, finding insufficient evidence to justify the request.

The decision criticizes the parties' lack of progress toward a final order, the repeated use of interim motions, and the inefficiency this causes in the family court system.

The court schedules a Trial Scheduling Conference and emphasizes the need for final resolution rather than continued piecemeal litigation.

An appeal from a Superior Court order concerning spousal support, child support, and a fraudulent conveyance application.

The appeal raised three issues: whether the motion judge erred in varying spousal support, varying child support, and dismissing the fraudulent conveyance application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, dismissed the appeal regarding spousal support, and dismissed the fraudulent conveyance appeal.

The court allocated costs among the three issues and offset costs between the parties.

Appeal from a motion judge's order varying child and spousal support orders from a 1999 judgment.

The respondent sought to vary support based on changed circumstances, including health issues and reduced income.

The motion judge terminated spousal support as of December 31, 2002, based on the appellant's material change in circumstances (employment and remarriage), and reduced child support from 2004 onwards due to the respondent's declining income.

The appellant appealed the variation of support orders and the dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance application.

The respondent cross-appealed the refusal to award costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, dismissed the appeals regarding spousal support and fraudulent conveyances, and dismissed the cross-appeal on costs.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal regarding a contract for the sale of land.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that time was not of the essence in the contract and the vendor had accepted the conditions as terms imposing obligations upon him.

The Court held that the vendor was in default and guilty of premature repudiation, restoring the trial judge's award of damages to the purchasers.