Richard Craig Corbett

The respondent husband moved for partial summary judgment or a decision on a question of law regarding whether a pay equity award received by the applicant wife should be included in her net family property.

The court found that the portion of the pay equity award attributable to pre-separation wages, less amounts for injury to dignity, interest, and post-separation work, forms part of the applicant’s net family property.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondent.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking child support based on imputed income, a restraining order, and continued payment of household expenses.

The respondent sought an interim parenting schedule.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered the respondent to continue paying household expenses, and established a new parenting time schedule.

The request for a restraining order was denied due to insufficient evidence of reasonable grounds for fear.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision to dismiss an action for damages related to alleged improper transactions undertaken by the respondents while administering an estate.

The appellants raised three grounds of appeal: errors in credibility assessment, reliance on inadmissible hearsay, and an incorrect finding that respondents could act as attorneys under a Power of Attorney (POA) while the principal was still capable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, affirming the motion judge's credibility findings, finding no reliance on inadmissible hearsay, and confirming that the standard form POA allowed attorneys to act before incapacity, as it had no conditions or postponed effective date.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the respondents due to the appellants' frivolous allegations.

The respondent sought to restore parenting time after the applicant unilaterally suspended access due to pandemic concerns.

The applicant filed a cross-motion for a new access schedule, pandemic-related terms, and a restraining order.

The court adjourned the primary access motions but granted a one-year restraining order against the respondent based on corroborated allegations of abuse.

The court also issued temporary parenting time orders, vacating a prior consent order and establishing a new schedule and exchange protocol, while largely rejecting the applicant's detailed pandemic-specific requests.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a prior motion where the applicants sought further relief, which was largely denied, and the executors (respondents) were ordered to pass accounts and restrict insurance disbursements.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondents were successful on the costs issue, noting the motion's necessity stemmed from the applicants' unsupported claims.

The respondents, as trustees, were entitled to actual costs from the estate, and the applicants were ordered to partially indemnify the estate by paying $5,000 in costs to the estate.

The applicants, the estranged wife and children of the deceased, brought an application against the respondents, the executors of the deceased's estate.

The deceased had changed the beneficiary designation on his life insurance policy and an RRSP shortly before his death, which the applicants alleged breached a separation agreement.

The applicants sought immediate payment of the life insurance proceeds and an order that the RRSP proceeds be paid into court.

The court declined to order immediate payment or payment into court, noting potential limitation issues and a lack of evidence regarding the deceased's competence, but ordered the trustees to pass their accounts within 90 days and maintain the insurance proceeds in investment for support payments.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home following separation due to the respondent's psychological abuse.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession, ordering the respondent to vacate, primarily considering the best interests of the children involved.

The decision highlighted the unsuitability of the status quo for the children and the applicant's ability to maintain the home.

Costs were fixed at $750 and reserved to the trial judge.

The defendant moved to set aside a $6 million default judgment entered against her.

The plaintiffs had sued the defendant and others for misconduct related to the purchase of life insurance policies.

The court found that while the defendant did not bring the motion promptly and lacked a good explanation for her default, she had an arguable defence on the merits regarding her personal liability as a corporate officer.

Balancing the factors, the court set aside the default judgment on terms, requiring the defendant to pay costs thrown away and the costs of the motion, and allowing the writ of execution to remain on title.