P. Callahan

The respondent husband brought an interim motion to stay or reduce his $13,000 monthly spousal support obligation and stay enforcement of arrears pending the hearing of his motion to change.

The husband argued his income had significantly decreased due to selling his business following a cancer diagnosis.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the husband established a prima facie material change in circumstances, he failed to demonstrate hardship as he could pay support from his investments, and he came to court with unclean hands due to his deliberate prior non-compliance with the support order.

Following a motion regarding undertakings and refusals where the RBC defendants were largely successful, they sought substantial indemnity costs of $10,350 due to the plaintiff's uncooperative conduct and delays.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not reach the required threshold of abusive or reprehensible behaviour.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $7,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the plaintiff.

In an action for malicious prosecution and negligence arising from fraud charges, the RBC defendants sought an order requiring the plaintiff's estate trustee to reattend personally to answer questions previously refused on discovery.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants improperly contacted the court and that written answers would suffice.

The court found the defendants' communication was proper and ordered the estate trustee to reattend at his own expense, as follow-up questions would be necessary and a personal attendance would be more efficient than written answers.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery in an action for malicious prosecution and negligence arising from a failed business loan application and subsequent fraud charges.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding the estate trustee's previous business dealings, prior fraud conviction, and the factual basis for the malicious prosecution claim.

The court also ordered the defendants to answer specific questions regarding the information provided to the RCMP, while upholding refusals for questions that were argumentative, irrelevant, or already answered.

The defendants were largely successful on the motion.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed by an order of the Registrar.

The defendants brought a motion in writing to fix costs, seeking $42,740.56 on a substantial indemnity scale based on an unaccepted formal offer to settle.

Despite multiple extensions, the self-represented plaintiff failed to deliver responding materials.

The court found the defendants were completely successful and the offer met the requirements of Rule 49.10(1).

Costs were fixed at $36,000, reflecting partial indemnity up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The payor brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside a Final Default Order that fixed his spousal support arrears at over $480,000 and ordered incarceration in the event of future default.

The payor argued he did not receive adequate notice of the remote default hearing and was unable to attend due to age and health concerns amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied the Mountain View Farms factors and found that the payor had received adequate notice, simply chose to ignore the proceeding, and failed to establish an arguable case on the merits regarding his inability to pay.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a 20-year relationship, the applicant wife sought spousal support, while the respondent husband, who had custody of their three children, sought spousal support and section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed and imputed his income at $115,000.

The applicant was awarded compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support due to her 11-year absence from the workforce to care for the children.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $1,150 per month in ongoing spousal support, which included a $200 monthly deduction representing the applicant's contribution to the children's section 7 sports and post-secondary expenses.

The respondent's claims for spousal support and debt contribution were dismissed.

Two actions were tried together involving a commercial property.

In the first action, the mortgagee sought to enforce a mortgage and claim the balance owing.

In the second action, the mortgagor/landlord claimed rental arrears from the tenant and sought to invalidate the mortgagee's purported sale of the property to itself under power of sale.

The court found that the mortgagee acted in bad faith, failed to obtain a proper price, and violated the rule against a mortgagee selling to itself.

The power of sale was declared void, and the title was rectified.

The court also found that the mortgage had been paid in full through the receipt of rents, dismissing the mortgage action.

The tenant and subtenant were found jointly and severally liable for rental arrears accruing after the mortgage was paid out.

Two actions were tried together involving a commercial property.

In the first action, the mortgagee sought to enforce a mortgage and claim the balance owing.

In the second action, the mortgagor/landlord claimed rental arrears from the tenant and sought to invalidate the mortgagee's purported sale of the property to itself under power of sale.

The court found that the mortgagee acted in bad faith, failed to obtain a proper price, and violated the rule against a mortgagee selling to itself.

The power of sale was declared void, and the title was rectified.

The court also found that the mortgage had been paid in full through the receipt of rents, dismissing the mortgage action.

The tenant and subtenant were found jointly and severally liable for rental arrears accruing after the mortgage was paid out.

Following a trial of issues under section 81 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act regarding competing claims to property, the successful claimant sought costs against the unsuccessful claimant, and the unsuccessful claimant sought costs against the Trustee.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful claimant, finding no litigation conduct warranting elevated costs.

The unsuccessful claimant's request for costs against the Trustee was denied because its own contradictory and incomplete positions necessitated the Trustee seeking the court's directions.