Richard Keith Guy

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to change a consent order requiring payment of child and spousal support following the breakdown of a common-law relationship.

The applicant alleged that a prior assault by the respondent caused injuries rendering her incapable of remunerative employment and entitling her to continued spousal support despite the short duration of the relationship.

The court held that the applicant bore the onus of establishing that her alleged incapacity was caused by the assault.

Medical evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the injuries were attributable to the assault or that the applicant was incapable of employment.

Child support was terminated retroactively to December 31, 2010, and spousal support was terminated effective May 31, 2013.

Family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and sale of matrimonial real estate following separation.

The court granted the mother sole custody of the child and established a graduated access schedule for the father beginning with supervised access and transitioning to unsupervised weekend access.

Retroactive child support and spousal support were denied because the father's share of rental profits retained by the mother since separation was sufficient to offset those obligations, though ongoing guideline child support was ordered based on imputed income.

The parties were ordered to sell jointly owned real properties with proceeds applied to debts and then divided equally, subject to an equalization payment from the father.

The father was also ordered to sign passport documentation for the child subject to notice restrictions on relocation.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action as statute‑barred, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be denied because the court had found the defendants committed a fraud or misrepresentation in the underlying real estate transaction.

The court held that, despite sympathy for the plaintiffs, the action had been commenced outside the applicable limitation period and should not have been brought so late.

Costs therefore followed the result, though the defendants’ claimed partial indemnity costs were reduced.

The court fixed partial indemnity fees at 66 percent of the full indemnity amount, with HST applied and disbursements allowed as claimed.

The plaintiffs commenced an action alleging misrepresentation in connection with the purchase of a residential property, claiming the vendors falsely represented that the property had no flooding, water issues, or prior renovations.

Evidence showed that the purchasers discovered moisture, rot, and structural concerns within the first two years after closing.

The defendants raised a limitation defence under the Limitations Act.

The court held that the purchasers had sufficient knowledge of material facts to trigger discoverability well before the action was issued, and that reasonable inquiry would have revealed the alleged misrepresentation earlier.

The action was therefore statute‑barred.

The respondent parent brought a motion for contempt alleging that the other parent failed to comply with prior custody and access orders by influencing the parties’ children not to visit her.

The responding parent argued the children independently refused access and threatened to run away if forced to return.

The court held that contempt proceedings require clear and reliable evidence and found the record insufficient to determine the reasons for the children’s refusal.

The court ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to obtain further information regarding the children’s circumstances.

The contempt motion was adjourned pending that involvement.

The court determined the issue of costs following a family law decision in which both parties claimed entitlement to costs.

The court found that success was divided between the parties.

Although the applicant had served multiple offers to settle, the court concluded that the offers did not materially affect the costs analysis because the applicant matched only one of the offers while failing to match the others.

In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to decline awarding costs to either party.