Michelle Eveleyn Huntington McAnulty

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of an action.

The court considered the established factors for setting aside such dismissals, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

While the court accepted that these four factors generally favoured the plaintiff, it considered the additional factor of the merits of the action where the evidence was clear and unchallenged.

The court found that a previously executed full and final release barred the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants relating to an earlier action and a prior court order.

As a result, the claim lacked merit and the administrative dismissal would not be set aside.

Following a prior trial addressing spousal support and child-related expenses, the applicant advanced claims for constructive trust based on unjust enrichment, lump sum spousal support, and post-retirement spousal support after her equalization claim became unenforceable due to the respondent’s completed consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that although the applicant had made significant indirect contributions during the marriage, the enrichment resulting from the respondent’s bankruptcy process constituted a juristic reason defeating the unjust enrichment claim.

The court also declined to award lump sum spousal support because the respondent lacked financial means and such an order would effectively redistribute assets.

However, the court ordered that spousal support be subject to review upon the respondent’s retirement, with consideration of pension income accrued during the marriage.

Following a marriage of 16 years, the applicant sought spousal support, contribution to s. 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The court held that the equalization claim was stayed due to the respondent’s completed consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non‑compensatory bases given the applicant’s years out of the workforce raising children and the income disparity between the parties.

Ongoing spousal support of $500 per month was ordered for a time‑limited period until April 30, 2018, together with retroactive spousal support of $8,825 payable monthly.

The court declined to order additional contributions for extracurricular expenses but ordered a modest payment related to post‑secondary education expenses and set out detailed ongoing support arrangements.

On interim family law motions following separation, the applicant sought spousal support, occupation rent, and an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought ongoing child support for the parties’ adult child who resided with him while attending university.

The court found prima facie entitlement to spousal support based on income disparity following a long marriage and applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines using the parties’ actual 2012 incomes.

Retroactive spousal support was ordered from April 1, 2012, with different monthly amounts based on the parties’ changing incomes, and ongoing support was set at a lower amount.

The applicant was ordered to pay guideline child support for the child living with the respondent.

The court also ordered the immediate listing and sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act, with proceeds to be divided and part held in trust pending equalization.

The responding parent brought a motion seeking an interim shared parenting arrangement for a young child following relocation to another city approximately 225 kilometres away.

The moving parent sought primary residence of the child with limited access for the other parent and alleged concerns about the other parent’s behaviour.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo on interim motions involving custody and parenting, absent compelling evidence that a change is necessary to protect the child’s best interests.

Finding that the parties had historically shared parenting and that the relocation had not significantly altered the child’s experience with each parent, the court ordered joint custody and an alternating two‑week parenting schedule pending trial.

Requests for disclosure of child protection records were denied due to hearsay and insufficient evidence.