Wayne D. Young

The applicant sought an order for the distribution of the residue of an estate in four equal shares, including herself, based on the interpretation of the deceased's will.

The will contained clauses contingent on whether the deceased and the applicant had a shared ownership interest in a primary residence at the time of death.

The executor argued that a clause excluding the applicant applied because she separately owned a primary residence.

The court, applying the "armchair rule" of will interpretation, found that the relevant clauses referred to a shared ownership interest between the deceased and the applicant.

Since they did not share ownership of a primary residence, the clause entitling the applicant to an equal share of the residue applied.

The application was granted, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and criminal harassment against his estranged spouse, as well as his 42-month global sentence.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the timing of divorce proceedings and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) principles to his testimony.

He also sought to introduce fresh evidence from family court proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and rejecting the fresh evidence as it failed the Palmer test.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court affirming that the sentence was fit and that the trial judge properly considered the abusive domestic context and parental alienation as aggravating factors.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent mother for various alleged breaches of existing parenting orders, including issues related to the child's last name, travel permissions, school matters, counselling, sports activities, and communication.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish wilful breach beyond a reasonable doubt and that the motion was a disguised attempt to relitigate or vary previous orders, perpetuating high conflict detrimental to the child.

The plaintiff, an untitled spouse, sought partial summary judgment to declare a condominium corporation's lien and power of sale proceedings null and void against her, arguing she was not properly notified as required by the Family Law Act.

The court found that the condominium corporation failed to make reasonable inquiries to determine if the unit was a matrimonial home and to provide notice to the untitled spouse at her registered address before initiating lien and power of sale proceedings.

Consequently, the lien was deemed invalid against the plaintiff, and associated legal and collection costs were not recoverable from her.

The mother brought a motion to impute income to the father under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, arguing his corporate expenses for two trucking and mobile wash businesses should be reduced by 50% and added to his income.

The father brought a cross-motion to reduce his child support based on his reported income.

The court reviewed the corporate expenses, disallowing or reducing certain claims for meals, home office, and professional fees, and imputed the father's income at $70,681 for 2014 and $71,921 for 2015.

The court ordered the parties to share section 7 post-secondary expenses proportionately based on their incomes.

The respondent father brought a motion for equal shared parenting and an order that the child's residence remain in Ottawa.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to Cornwall to live with her fiancé.

The court applied the framework from Gordon v. Goertz and determined that it was in the child's best interests to remain in Ottawa on an interim basis, noting the child's established routine, extended family, and the lack of detailed evidence regarding the proposed move.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence remain in Ottawa, maintained the existing parenting schedule, and ordered the father to pay interim child support.

A contractor brought an action under the Construction Lien Act seeking payment for labour and materials supplied during residential renovation work.

The homeowner denied liability, alleging incomplete and deficient work and counterclaimed for overpayment and repair costs.

After reviewing conflicting evidence regarding the percentage of project completion and the quality of workmanship, the court found the project was approximately 40% complete and that the contractor had incurred material expenses on the homeowner’s behalf.

Although some deficiencies were established, most alleged defects reflected higher construction standards than those contemplated by the parties’ low-cost arrangement.

Judgment was granted for the contractor for the unpaid value of labour and materials less modest deductions for proven deficiencies.