Paula R. McMurtry

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, life insurance as security, and disclosure.

The respondent, a self-employed IT consultant operating through a personal services corporation, argued his income was lower due to retained earnings and reduced hours from a medical condition.

The court imputed income to the respondent, finding no valid business reason to retain pre-tax corporate earnings and noting he was underemployed compared to his medical restrictions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $2,250 per month and maintain $700,000 in life insurance designating the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Jarvis J. dated January 28, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order dated January 28, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the respondent.

The estate trustee for the deceased applicant brought a motion seeking a contempt finding against the respondent, partition and sale of a property, and an order dispensing with the consent of the estate's beneficiaries to transfer property interests.

The court dismissed the contempt and partition claims, noting the latter was a nullity as it was brought within one year of the deceased's death.

The trustee abandoned the request to dispense with beneficiary consent.

The court declined to award costs against the trustee personally or the estate, and ordered a further conference to address the frustrated settlement.

The appellant closed an access road leading to the respondents' landlocked cottage properties after the respondents refused to pay an increased annual user fee.

The appellant argued it could close the road without a court order under the Road Access Act because the respondents had 'alternate road access' via an unopened municipal road allowance or by paying the requested fee for the existing road.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that 'alternate road access' requires an existing, different road, and neither an unopened road allowance nor the same road subject to a fee qualifies.