Robert Kenneth Bickle

The plaintiff, Ryan Grealy, brought an action for damages for breach of contract after his employment with XL Tool Inc. was terminated without cause.

Grealy had left a long-term position at Diematic Tooling Solutions Inc. to join the defendant, initially on a part-time basis and then full-time.

Upon termination, he was paid one week’s severance as required by the Employment Standards Act, but claimed this was inadequate.

The court considered whether Grealy was induced to leave secure employment, the appropriate notice period, and whether punitive damages were warranted.

The court found no inducement, set a reasonable notice period of 12 weeks, and awarded damages accordingly, but denied punitive damages.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking to dismiss the Applicant's 26-year-old family law application for delay and to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against a property.

The Applicant provided extensive reasons for the delay, including severe health issues, financial hardship, and alleged abuse by the Respondent.

The court found that the Applicant successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice arising from the inordinate delay and that the Respondent failed to demonstrate actual prejudice.

Furthermore, the court determined there was a triable issue regarding the Applicant's constructive trust claim in the property, which weighed against discharging the CPL.

Consequently, the Respondent's motion was dismissed, the CPL remained in place, and an expedited trial on the outstanding issues was ordered.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order reducing spousal support.

The appellant argued that the trial judge was premature in accepting the respondent's retirement and that there was no basis for reducing support if appropriate income was imputed to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge heard the evidence, reached conclusions available on the evidence, and properly applied the applicable legal principles under the Divorce Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent following a motion where the respondent was largely successful on the predominant issues, including the duration of spousal support, child support for post-secondary education, and tax credit reimbursement.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs, noting the applicant's reasonable conduct and offer to settle, and reduced the respondent's claim for costs related to previous steps and the necessity of the applicant's motion.

This is a costs endorsement following a partial appeal in a family law matter.

The appellant was successful in reducing the quantum of spousal support on appeal but was wholly unsuccessful on the equalization payment issue and failed on several other grounds relating to spousal support.

The court affirmed the trial costs and awarded the appellant partial costs of the appeal in a fixed sum, reflecting his limited success.

In a 32-year marriage, the trial judge ordered equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The appellant challenged both awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the equalization determination, finding the trial judge's use of similar multiples for two companies in the same business was reasonable and well-reasoned.

However, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in principle in determining spousal support by failing to consider the significant effect of the equalization payment on the respondent's compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement and by failing to impute investment income to the respondent based on the equalization payment.

The spousal support was varied from $28,978 per month to $21,000 per month based on an imputed income of $675,000 rather than the full $1,000,000.

The applicant sought to terminate child support and spousal support, and for reimbursement of child support overpayments.

The respondent sought to increase spousal support, apply child support overpayments to retroactive spousal support, and establish a mechanism for post-secondary education contributions.

The court terminated child support effective October 1, 2015, increased spousal support retroactively, credited the child support overpayment against the increased spousal support, and ordered proportionate contributions for post-secondary education expenses, with spousal support reviewable in three years.

Following a successful application for child support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought recovery of legal costs after obtaining a child support order.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis and fixed them at $3,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The order directed that the costs be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office with monthly payments.