Theodore C. Dueck

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage, during which they relocated to the UAE for work.

The applicant returned to Canada with the children and remained unemployed for a period, while the respondent stayed in the UAE to pay off debts and continue teaching.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, including the valuation of the applicant's OMERS pension and a disputed loan from his parents, which was excluded due to the expiration of the limitation period.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant, found the adult daughter remained a child of the marriage during a mental health leave from university, and awarded the applicant non-compensatory spousal support for a four-year transition period.

After setting off the equalization payment against retroactive support arrears, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant a net sum of $34,996.84.

The moving party (respondent in the main action) brought a pre-trial motion seeking an order that his valuation experts not be disqualified due to a perceived conflict of interest raised by the responding party.

The responding party argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to bind the trial judge's discretion on admitting expert evidence.

The court agreed, finding that the trial judge acts as the gatekeeper for admitting evidence and a pre-trial ruling could leave the trial judge in an untenable position if cross-examination revealed a conflict.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff abandoned its motion for an interlocutory injunction after nearly two years.

The defendants sought costs of the abandoned motion on a substantial indemnity scale, payable forthwith.

The court held that, absent extraordinary circumstances, costs of an abandoned injunction motion are payable forthwith.

Finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixing them at $65,908.61 for the Racer Defendants and $22,713.82 for the Standard Defendants.

Following a successful application regarding the scope of a right of way and removal of obstructions interfering with vehicular ingress and egress, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The responding parties argued that the successful parties should receive a reduced costs award because they failed to pursue meaningful pre‑litigation discussions and adopted an unnecessarily adversarial approach.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and rejected the argument that the successful parties’ conduct disentitled them to costs.

Finding partial indemnity appropriate, the court fixed costs at a reduced but substantial amount.

The responding parties were ordered to pay a lump‑sum costs award.

The father brought a motion to change a 2000 divorce judgment, seeking to terminate child support for one child and adjust it for the other based on a reduction in his income after he sold his dental practice and moved to Honduras.

The court found the father was intentionally unemployed and under-employed, and that his health issues did not reasonably justify the sale of his practice.

The court imputed income to the father and determined the periods during which each child remained a 'child of the marriage' while pursuing post-secondary education.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive table support and his pro rata share of section 7 expenses for both children.