Richard Keith Guy

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment regarding child support, spousal support, unjust enrichment, and costs.

She argued the trial judge was biased, erred in apportioning child support with the biological father, improperly limited spousal support to 9 years despite her disability, and wrongly dismissed her constructive trust claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, needs and means analysis, or application of the test for unjust enrichment.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision apportioning the proceeds of sale of a home formerly occupied by the parties.

The parties, who lived together but were not married, had an agreement to share expenses and divide the proceeds of the home's sale equally after reimbursing the appellant's down payment.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in granting the respondent an allowance akin to occupation rent, as they were not joint owners or spouses under the Family Law Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge appropriately considered all circumstances, including the appellant's sole occupation of the property and the equitable claims of unjust enrichment and constructive trust, to arrive at an equitable division of the proceeds.

The Wikwemikong Tribal Police Service brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by a First Nations Constable from a finding of discreditable conduct.

The moving party argued that the Ontario Civilian Police Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because First Nations Constables are explicitly excluded from the definition of 'police officer' under the Police Services Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that its statutory authority to hear appeals under section 87 of the Act applies only to police officers and complainants.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a dispute over a share of winnings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual conclusions, particularly regarding a conversation at a restaurant, were supported by the evidence and based on unassailable credibility findings.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment concerning spousal support, property provisions of an agreement, custody, failure to grant a divorce, division of equity in the matrimonial home, and costs.

The respondent conceded the issues regarding the divorce order and the deduction of the existing mortgage from the matrimonial home equity.

The Court of Appeal granted the divorce and amended the property order accordingly.

The remainder of the appeal was dismissed, as the trial judge's decisions on spousal support, repudiation of the property agreement, and custody were supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred in her costs award by misstating the length of the trial and made errors in assessing the evidence and credibility of the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reference to a six-day trial was a mere slip and the costs award was reasonable.

The Court also found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's appreciation of the evidence, noting she properly addressed credibility on each disputed issue.

Crown appeal from the dismissal of an appeal from acquittals on impaired driving and driving over 80 charges.

The court held that the requirement in s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code that breath samples be taken "as soon as practicable" does not require police to have a breathalyzer technician available at every detachment at all times or to organize themselves so samples are taken as soon as possible.

The proper inquiry is whether the samples were taken within a reasonably prompt time in the circumstances, including where relevant the way the police were organized and why.

The court also held that the trial judge erred in law on the impaired count by proceeding on the basis that breathalyzer readings could be used to prove degree of impairment absent expert evidence, and may have applied the wrong test for impairment.

Leave was granted, the appeal allowed, the acquittals set aside, and a new trial directed on both counts.