Moldaver J.A.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding child support and section 7 expenses.

The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in the exercise of his discretion on four issues, including the consideration of student loans in the section 7 analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge carefully balanced the parties' interests, made no error in principle, and was entitled to consider student loans in the circumstances.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's disposition, noting the prolonged and largely unexplained delay in bringing the motion for a hearing, as well as the potential prejudice to a third-party purchaser who was not given notice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,500.

The deceased purchased two retirement savings plans and designated family members as beneficiaries.

Shortly before her death, she executed a holograph will listing her assets, including the plans, and leaving bequests to various individuals and charities.

The estate trustee argued the will implicitly revoked the prior designations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under sections 51 and 52 of the Succession Law Reform Act, a revocation or designation in a will must relate expressly to the plan or the prior designation.

The holograph will failed to meet these statutory requirements, so the original beneficiary designations remained valid.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that a courier employee acted as an agent for the police when opening a package containing cocaine, thereby violating section 8 of the Charter.

The trial judge found that the employee acted independently based on his perceived obligation to his company, and the police officer did not encourage the search.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that no agency relationship existed and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis that the trial judge's credibility findings regarding an eight-year-old child witness were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found profound internal inconsistencies in the child's evidence that went to the core of the alleged offence, which the trial judge failed to reconcile.

The Court held that the trial judge erred by lowering the standard of proof due to the complainant's age.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and an acquittal was entered.