R. Dan Cornell

In a divorce proceeding, the respondent spouse sought a lump‑sum spousal support award to be satisfied through division of the applicant’s pension after the applicant’s post‑separation bankruptcy eliminated any potential equalization payment.

The court held that an equalization claim constitutes a provable debt in bankruptcy and is extinguished upon discharge unless the stay is lifted during the bankruptcy process.

The respondent had knowledge of the bankruptcy but failed to take timely steps to lift the stay and therefore could not indirectly pursue equalization through a lump‑sum spousal support award.

The court rejected compensatory and unjust enrichment claims but awarded limited periodic spousal support due to economic hardship caused by joint debts addressed through a consumer proposal.

Support was ordered to commence when the applicant resumed employment or received long‑term disability benefits and to terminate on December 31, 2015.

In a criminal prosecution involving allegations of sexual assault against a child, the Crown sought to admit similar act evidence from a prior trial in which the accused had recently been convicted of comparable sexual offences involving another young complainant.

The defence argued the application should not proceed until appellate rights relating to the earlier conviction were exhausted and challenged the evidentiary basis for the application.

The court rejected the preliminary objection and held that the prior conviction and the trial judge’s reasons were admissible evidence on the similar fact voir dire.

Applying the governing principles from the Supreme Court of Canada, the court concluded that the similarities between the alleged acts—including the age of the complainants, the nature of the sexual acts, and the familial relationship—were highly probative and significantly outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The similar act evidence was therefore admitted.

Application concerning retroactive and ongoing child support following changes to parenting arrangements that evolved into a hybrid shared‑custody regime.

The court applied the framework from Contino and the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine support where two children were in shared custody and one primarily resided with the applicant.

Considering the parties’ respective household incomes, the applicant’s remarriage, the respondent’s responsibility for section 7 expenses, and the goal of maintaining comparable standards of living in each household, the court departed from the table set‑off amount.

Ongoing support was fixed at $800 per month.

Retroactive support was limited to the years 2011‑2013 due to delay and hardship considerations, resulting in a modest balance owing together with arrears of section 7 expenses.

The applicant sought retroactive spousal support following separation, arguing the respondent failed to disclose a significant increase in income after securing temporary employment in 2012.

The court reviewed the governing principles for retroactive spousal support, including the recipient’s needs, the payor’s conduct, delay, and potential hardship, as articulated in appellate jurisprudence and the Supreme Court of Canada.

While the court criticized the respondent’s failure to provide timely financial disclosure and his reckless spending, it found the applicant’s modest needs had largely been met through various payments and living arrangements.

Given the respondent’s advanced age, lack of assets, and limited future income, a retroactive award would impose undue hardship.

The court therefore dismissed the claim for retroactive support but ordered ongoing spousal support consistent with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action regarding a Multiple Unit Residential Building (MURB) investment scheme.

The investors, who had signed powers of attorney in favour of the developer, alleged financial manipulation and breach of fiduciary duty.

Given the complex financial history, the lack of proper accounting by the mortgagee, and the overlapping shareholder oppression claims, the case management judge directed a reference to determine the mortgage accounting and related issues.

The judge also ordered a stay of the foreclosure action and oppression applications pending the reference.