Wendy Joanne Horton

The defendants, vendors of a farm property, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action against them regarding an unregistered solar panel lease.

The plaintiff, who owned the solar panels, sued both the vendors and the purchaser after the purchaser denied him access to the property.

The vendors argued the purchaser had actual notice of the lease and was bound by it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial due to an insufficient evidentiary record, contradictory statements in closing documents including a statutory declaration, and the risk of inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

Following a 24‑year marriage and separation in 2006, the applicant sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The court found entitlement based on need due to a significant post‑separation income disparity but rejected a compensatory basis.

After considering the parties’ incomes, living arrangements, and the applicant’s reduced needs due to cohabitation with a new partner, the court awarded varying retroactive support amounts for 2007–2012 and ongoing support.

Beginning January 2013, income was imputed to the applicant at full‑time hours and indefinite support of $300 per month was ordered.

A claim for reimbursement of post‑separation expenses was denied because it was not pleaded.

The applicant brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support and related relief.

After earlier endorsements, the parties sought clarification and the court considered whether it was functus officio and whether further evidence could be admitted.

The court held it was not functus because no formal order had been signed, but declined to admit additional evidence that existed or was reasonably discoverable at the time of the earlier endorsements.

The court clarified several income items relevant to the spousal support calculation and confirmed the respondent’s obligation to pay spousal support retroactive to the date of separation.

Following an earlier endorsement addressing issues in a Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines income calculation, counsel requested clarification on two additional income items.

The court determined that the applicant’s $25,000 RRSP withdrawal should be included in her income for spousal support purposes, distinguishing authority where such withdrawals had already been accounted for in property equalization.

However, the court declined to include a dividend amount reported on a prior tax return, finding the evidence suggested it was an anomalous transaction.

The court relied on admissible portions of an accountant’s letter as a business record but rejected opinion evidence on the ultimate issue.

The supplementary endorsement clarified how these items should be treated in calculating spousal support.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support along with ancillary relief including disclosure, life insurance maintenance, questioning of the respondent, and leave to amend the application.

The court addressed entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non‑compensatory bases following a relatively short marriage and disputed cohabitation period.

The court found entitlement only on a non‑compensatory basis, concluding that the applicant demonstrated economic need but that the evidence did not support compensatory entitlement.

In determining the appropriate Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines inputs, the court resolved disputes about income components, the length of cohabitation, and employment income figures.

Temporary support was ordered at the mid‑range of the SSAG calculation based on the court’s determined inputs.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing her claims for special damages and loss of income due to her failure to fulfill undertakings from an examination for discovery.

By the time of the appeal, the outstanding undertakings had been fulfilled.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Master's order, finding that the plaintiff's conduct was not contumelious and did not cause serious prejudice to the defendant, and that denying her a day in court would allow form to triumph over substance.