Thomas William Curran

The plaintiff, Howard and Associates Inc., brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendant, Tomasek Agencies Inc., was not a "dependent contractor" and an order for the delivery of a sworn affidavit of documents.

The defendant had initially asserted a dependent contractor relationship but later clarified its position was based on implied contractual rights.

The court found the issue of dependent contractor status was not theoretical given the defendant's initial stance and reference to "economic dependence." The motion was granted, declaring that the defendant was not a dependent contractor and ordering the delivery of a sworn affidavit of documents.

The applicant mother sought summary judgment for sole custody, child support, and a denial of access to the respondent father.

The respondent father had a history of egregious misconduct, including criminal charges, harassment of the applicant, and violating previous court orders.

The court applied the expanded summary judgment rules under the Family Law Rules, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and child support, and suspended the respondent's access, finding that his behavior made even supervised access unworkable and contrary to the child's best interests.

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 father brought a motion for interim custody of the parties' one-year-old child, and the mother brought a cross-motion for child and spousal support.

The mother had unilaterally left the matrimonial home with the child, and the father subsequently sold the home without her consent.

The court found the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth and her departure was not a tactical maneuver, whereas the father's sale of the home prioritized his own interests.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence remain with the mother, granted the father specified parenting time, and ordered the father to pay retroactive child and spousal support.

On a motion to change a separation agreement, the applicant sought amendments to provisions governing child support and post-secondary education expenses for children over the age of 18 pursuing education.

The court found no binding agreement had been reached at a prior case conference regarding the proposed amendments.

The court amended the agreement to require child support while a child over 18 attends post-secondary education on a full-time basis and imposed an age limit of 25 for such support where the child resides with a parent.

The court also replaced the existing post-secondary expense clause with a detailed budgeting and contribution framework requiring the child to contribute between one-third and two-thirds of expenses, with the remainder shared proportionally between the parents.

Given the mixed success of the parties, no costs were ordered.

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.

In a child protection proceeding, the court considered whether two young children previously placed with their maternal grandparents should be returned to the parents under an interim supervision order.

The evidence showed both parents had histories of substance abuse, though the mother had demonstrated recent progress through negative drug testing and treatment participation, while the father continued to test positive for marijuana and had not fully advanced in treatment.

The court held that parental drug use may constitute a risk to children depending on the factual context and rejected the argument that drug use alone can never affect parenting capacity.

The children were returned to the mother’s temporary care subject to Society supervision and extensive conditions addressing treatment compliance, drug testing, and supervision of the father’s access.

The father was permitted to remain in the home but could only have supervised contact with the children except in limited circumstances.

The parties had an unconventional marriage, living apart for 17 years while the applicant worked abroad for the United Nations and the respondent raised their four children in Ottawa.

The applicant argued the valuation date for equalization should be April 1992, while the respondent argued it should be May 31, 2009, after a final period of cohabitation.

The court found that although the parties were separated from 2002 to 2008, there was always a reasonable prospect of reconciliation, and they did in fact reconcile in May 2008.

The valuation date was determined to be the date of final separation, May 31, 2009.

The applicant brought a motion to determine the calculation of child support arrears owed by the respondent pursuant to Minutes of Settlement signed in September 2011.

The court determined the retroactive date for child support, the applicable Federal Child Support Guidelines table amounts based on the respondent's province of residence, and the appropriate credits for child support already paid, travel costs, and section 7 expenses.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $18,811.44 in child support arrears and $8,000 in costs.

The respondent to an earlier application brought a motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him as guarantor on a promissory note.

The moving party argued the judgment should be set aside due to defective notice of the application, alleged representations by opposing counsel, and an asserted defence relating to inadequate legal advice regarding the guarantee.

The court accepted that the notice of application contained procedural defects and created confusion about whether the matter had already been decided.

However, the court held that the moving party failed to bring the motion promptly and demonstrated no viable defence on the merits.

Applying Rule 38.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and emphasizing the principles in Rule 1.04 regarding just and efficient determination of proceedings, the court declined to set aside the judgment.

The respondents obtained summary judgment and leave to continue their action against the appellant, who had made an assignment in bankruptcy in New Brunswick.

The motion judge provided no reasons for his decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment, holding that the serious jurisdictional issues and the appellant's self-represented status required the motion judge to provide an explanation for his decision.