Samantha Filipovic

The defendant municipality sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction prohibiting public use of municipal land pending trial in a nuisance action brought by neighbouring landowners.

The court considered the test for leave under rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires either conflicting authority or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order combined with broader importance.

Although no conflicting jurisprudence was shown, the court held that the scope of the injunction—effectively barring all municipal use of public land—raised serious questions regarding judicial oversight of municipal policy decisions and therefore met the “doubt the correctness” test.

Leave to appeal the injunction and the associated costs order was granted.

However, the court declined to stay the injunction pending appeal, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the order.

The applicant sought spousal support following a 12.5-year cohabitation and marriage.

The applicant suffers from mental illness, is unable to work, and receives CPP disability benefits.

The respondent earns approximately $71,500 plus bonuses and supports an adult child from a previous relationship who is attending post-secondary education.

The court found the applicant entitled to non-compensatory support based on need.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $650 per month in spousal support, commencing prospectively from July 1, 2013, for an indefinite duration, subject to a review de novo after January 1, 2019.

On a family law motion following separation after a long-term marriage, the applicant sought temporary spousal support, beneficiary designations, sale of the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and costs related to a motion to remove the respondent’s solicitor.

The court addressed the solicitor removal issue first and ordered the respondent to pay modest costs because the applicant was forced to bring the motion when the respondent declined to change counsel after a conflict arose.

On the support claim, the court declined to impute the higher income sought by the applicant and ordered modest interim spousal support of $200 per month.

The court ordered that the matrimonial home be listed for sale after April 1 with the applicant’s solicitor having carriage of the sale and the proceeds held in trust pending further order.

The claim for occupation rent was found to be premature and was referred to the trial judge.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support under the Family Law Act following the breakdown of a 12‑year common law relationship with no children.

The applicant earned approximately $28,000 annually while the respondent earned about $82,000.

The respondent argued that income should be imputed to the applicant based on his training as a welder, but the court accepted his current income circumstances.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the parties’ respective needs and means, the court determined that interim support was appropriate pending trial.

The respondent was ordered to pay temporary spousal support of $875 per month.

The parties separated in 2010 and agreed to shared custody of their two children.

At trial, the mother sought spousal support, retroactive child support, and retroactive section 7 expenses, while the father sought ongoing child support and section 7 expense contributions.

The court dismissed the mother's claims for spousal support, finding she was financially self-sufficient and had advanced her career during the marriage.

Claims for retroactive child support and section 7 expenses were also dismissed as the father had honoured a prior agreement and contributed appropriately.

Ongoing child support was calculated using a set-off approach, resulting in the father paying $444 per month, with extraordinary section 7 expenses split proportionate to income.

The applicant brought a motion for a refraining order to prevent the Family Responsibility Office from suspending his driver's licence due to alleged child support arrears, and for a stay of enforcement.

The applicant provided evidence of a 2010 agreement between counsel that all support obligations were resolved.

The court granted the refraining order conditionally, finding the applicant established a prima facie case and would suffer hardship if his licence were suspended.

However, the court adjourned the motion to stay enforcement and suspend the support deduction order, requiring the applicant to serve the support recipient so she could be heard.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an extension of an ex parte restraining order against her spouse under family law proceedings.

The order had temporarily prevented the respondent from attending the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the extension and alleged the motion was intended to remove him from the home rather than address safety concerns.

The court found the alleged threats constituted verbal conflict within a volatile marital relationship but were unlikely to result in violence given the parties’ history and absence of prior violence.

The court concluded there was insufficient justification to continue the restraining order.

Following motions in a family law dispute involving custody, access, and support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant was primarily successful on the core issues of custody and access and on the determination that spousal support should be based on part-time employment income.

The respondent achieved some success on related matters, including expanded access, temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and denial of a restraining order.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles of reasonableness governing costs awards, the court determined that the applicant was the party primarily successful but that her success was tempered by the respondent’s partial success and excessive motion materials.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced amount.

The parties brought competing motions in a family law dispute involving child support, property issues, and whether a custody order should be made for a 17‑year‑old child with special needs.

The court determined interim child support obligations, ordering the respondent to pay guideline support for the younger child and directing both parents to contribute proportionally to post‑secondary expenses for the older child attending college.

The court also made orders regarding orthodontic expenses, insurance coverage, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and the sale of a jointly owned rental property.

The request for a custody order for the nearly 17‑year‑old child was declined, with the court emphasizing the limited practical value of custody orders for older teenagers and finding no evidence that the child’s best interests required one.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim custody, child support, spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the mother interim sole custody, finding her proposed schedule minimized third-party care for the young children.

The father was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,273 per month based on his income.

Spousal support was denied at this time due to the father's assumption of significant family debt to purchase the mother's interest in the matrimonial home.

The father was granted 60 days of exclusive possession to complete the buyout.

Following the breakdown of a 12-year marriage, the applicant sought spousal support, enforcement of equalization and costs, and related relief.

Evidence showed the applicant worked part-time during the relationship while performing primary domestic responsibilities and contributing all earnings to the household, while the respondent had historically earned high income in mining-related employment but failed to comply with prior support and disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent intentionally under‑employed and imputed income based on his historical earnings.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court fixed ongoing spousal support and confirmed significant arrears.

The court also enforced outstanding cost awards through the Family Responsibility Office.