Scott Davidson Chambers

The parties separated after a long marriage during which they built a successful family business.

They settled property issues, with the respondent buying out the applicant's share of the business for over $1.6 million.

The applicant sought spousal support, arguing economic disadvantage and loss of the pre-separation standard of living.

The respondent argued that the property equalization precluded spousal support and that the applicant had no need.

The court found the applicant entitled to support, distinguishing the equalization of a business from a pension, and ordered the respondent to pay $9,584 per month based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, while declining to impute additional income to the respondent for alleged undisclosed cash transactions or business perks.

Two competing applications concerned governance of a national non‑profit organization and ownership of real property administered by one of its local branches.

The court considered whether a trust agreement purporting to grant beneficial ownership of property to the branch was valid and whether the organization’s executive board lawfully removed the branch president and dissolved the branch.

Interpreting the organization’s constitution, the court held that branches could not own property and that all real property was owned beneficially and legally by the national organization.

The purported trust agreement was therefore invalid.

However, the executive board’s decisions removing the branch president and dissolving the branch were quashed for breach of natural justice because adequate notice and opportunity to respond were not provided.

Costs decision following motions in two related civil actions seeking orders that the actions be tried together or sequentially, extensions of time to set the matters down for trial, and leave to amend a statement of claim.

Some relief sought by the plaintiffs was unopposed and granted, while other relief was modified by the court, which ordered the matters placed on the trial list together with the trial judge retaining discretion to try them together or separately.

The court found that neither side achieved complete success, as the plaintiffs did not obtain the precise relief requested and the opposing parties shifted their position during the hearing.

Given the divided success and the circumstances of the motions, the court concluded that no costs order was appropriate.

The plaintiffs brought motions seeking an order that two civil actions arising from alleged sexual assaults by a school guidance counsellor be tried together or consecutively.

The plaintiffs also sought an extension of time to set the actions down for trial and leave to amend one statement of claim.

The court applied Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the actions shared common questions of fact, overlapping witnesses, and a risk of inconsistent findings.

The court concluded that judicial economy and the interests of justice supported coordinating the proceedings.

Leave to amend was granted, timelines for trial were extended, and the actions were ordered to be placed on the trial list to be tried together or consecutively as directed by the trial judge.

Following earlier reasons granting relief in a dispute involving charitable corporations and trust‑like obligations over charitable assets, the successful applicants sought substantial indemnity costs against the respondent foundation.

The court considered allegations that the respondent had advanced reckless and unfounded accusations of dishonesty, breach of trust, and misappropriation during the proceedings.

It also reviewed the applicants’ unaccepted Rule 49 offer to settle and the complexity and importance of the litigation concerning charitable corporations, fiduciary duties, and the Charities Accounting Act.

The court concluded that the respondent’s conduct, including unsupported allegations and misrepresentations of fact, justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.

Costs of $454,686.19 were awarded to the applicants, and additional costs were awarded to the Public Guardian and Trustee.