Patrick Morris

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 20-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed a high standard of living during the marriage, with the respondent earning a significantly higher income than the applicant.

The court found that the applicant was entitled to interim support to maintain a standard of living commensurate with that enjoyed prior to separation.

The respondent was ordered to pay $12,500 per month in interim spousal support, retroactive to January 1, 2019.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for bifurcation in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought costs of $16,530.75 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent relied on an offer to settle made prior to the motion.

The court found the respondent was entitled to full recovery costs from the date of the offer, but only partial indemnity costs prior to that date.

The court also excluded costs claimed for steps not directly related to the motion.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $5,763 inclusive of HST.

The applicant, Mr. Van Eck, brought a motion for bifurcation in a matrimonial proceeding, seeking an initial trial solely on the validity of three domestic contracts.

He argued that upholding the contracts would preclude the respondent's claims for spousal support and equalization, saving time and costs.

The respondent, Ms. Pham, opposed the motion, arguing that bifurcation would cause prejudice and was not in the interest of justice, as the issues were complex and intertwined, particularly with her spousal support claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues regarding contract validity were not straightforward, a second trial would be inevitable due to the spousal support claim, and there would be significant duplication of evidence.

The court also noted potential prejudice to the respondent in assessing unconscionability without full financial disclosure and a determined separation date.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the date of separation in a family law matter.

The motion judge had ruled that the parties did not reach a final settlement agreement on the date of separation and struck references to settlement communications on the ground that they were protected by settlement privilege and would be irrelevant at trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that once the motion judge determined there was no agreement, the settlement communications became privileged and could not be used at trial to establish a date of separation.

The plaintiff suffered a fractured jaw and permanent nerve damage during the extraction of a wisdom tooth by the defendant oral surgeon.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action alleging the surgery was unnecessary, lack of informed consent, and negligence in the extraction procedure.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the extraction was necessary, the defendant adequately disclosed the risks, and the defendant met the standard of care during the surgery.

The court preferred the evidence of the defendant's expert and found that a jaw fracture can occur even with the use of minimal force.