William M. LeMay

Following a family trial, the court addressed access to the youngest child, retroactive and ongoing child support, spousal support, occupation rent, equalization, section 7 expenses, and divorce.

The court held that the existing consent access order would remain in place because no material change in circumstances had been shown.

Applying the governing framework for retroactive child support, the court ordered support retroactive for three years before the application date, found the adult daughter remained a child of the marriage, and fixed ongoing child support.

The court granted ongoing compensatory spousal support from May 2012 but declined retroactive spousal support before that date, dismissed the occupation rent claim, resolved net family property issues including exclusion of gifted foreign property, and ordered payment of specified section 7 expenses.

In a motor vehicle action issued within the limitation period but not served on the defendants until well after expiry of the service period, the plaintiff sought substituted service on the insurer and an extension of time for service, while the defendants sought dismissal for delay.

The court found the plaintiff's service efforts wholly lacking and criticized counsel's dilatory conduct, but held the defendants had not established sufficient specific prejudice to their ability to defend the action.

Relying on appellate authority emphasizing prejudice over mere passage of time, the court extended time for service on strict terms, refused immediate substituted service on the insurer, denied the cross-motion to dismiss, and imposed a peremptory litigation timetable against the plaintiff.

The court heard competing motions arising from a business sale dispute involving an agreement of purchase and sale entered into before the purchaser's corporation was incorporated and later followed by that corporation's bankruptcy.

The defendants sought to strike the individual plaintiff for lack of capacity and, alternatively, summary judgment dismissing his personal claim on the basis of an assignment under s. 21 of the Business Corporations Act; the plaintiffs sought declarations that the assignment transferred all rights and obligations to the corporation.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court held the record was inadequate to fairly and justly determine the assignment and liability issues, particularly given conflicting positions, the absence of evidence from the trustee in bankruptcy, and factual disputes about payments and asset transfers.

The court interpreted s. 21 of the Business Corporations Act as not permitting rights and obligations under the pre-incorporation contract to be severed in the manner urged by the defendants.

All motions were dismissed, though the plaintiffs were directed to amend their pleading to clarify alternative claims.