Scott D. 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.