Thomas Curran

The applicant moved for temporary spousal support, and the respondent moved for temporary child support and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The parties were married for 23 years, during which the applicant was financially dependent on the respondent, who has a high net worth.

The court imputed an annual income of $25,000 to the applicant due to his voluntary underemployment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $4,600 per month and ordered the applicant to pay $304 per month in child support and $823 per month for section 7 expenses.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking recovery on a promissory note allegedly assigned to him.

The defendants argued that no valid assignment existed, that a later written assignment could not retroactively confer standing, and that the claim was barred by the Limitations Act.

The court held that although the statutory requirements for a legal assignment were not satisfied, an equitable assignment arose through conduct including a written demand and commencement of the action.

The equitable assignment was effective before the limitation period expired.

The court exercised its discretion to add the assignor as a party plaintiff nunc pro tunc and granted judgment.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on a $70,000 promissory note assigned to him by his wholly-owned corporation.

The defendants opposed, arguing the assignment was invalid and raising a limitation period defence.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a full trial but adjourned the motion for further submissions on specific legal issues, including whether the action was statute-barred and the effect of a subsequent assignment executed after the action commenced.

Following a two-day family law trial determining the quantum of spousal support, the court addressed costs.

The applicant spouse had obtained a result more favourable than her pre-trial settlement offer and was found to be entirely successful at trial.

Applying Rules 24(11) and 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the presumption in favour of costs to the successful party applied and that the respondent’s intransigence necessitated the trial.

After reviewing the bill of costs and applying an overall reasonableness standard rather than a line‑by‑line assessment, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent.

Following the breakdown of a long traditional marriage, the court was required to determine the quantum and duration of spousal support where entitlement was conceded.

The applicant had largely remained out of the workforce during the marriage to care for the children and maintain the household, while the respondent advanced a successful career.

The court found the applicant suffered economic disadvantage arising from the marriage and was entitled to compensatory support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered staged monthly support, including an initial reduced amount while the applicant occupied the matrimonial home rent‑free, followed by higher support and later reduced support with income imputed to the applicant after 12 months.

Retroactive spousal support was also awarded dating back to shortly after the respondent was placed on notice of the claim.