Family Law: Support 

Ahmad v. Ahmed2018 ONCA 536 (39285)
The parties were married in Pakistan in 2000. There are three children of the marriage who all reside with the Respondent wife. The family immigrated to Canada in 2013. A few days later, the Applicant husband returned to Pakistan where he stayed for the next two years. The parties did not resume cohabitation. The Applicant was ordered to pay child support beginning in 2016. The Applicant sought a reduction in child support payments. The wife sought spousal support and an equalization of property. The trial judge imputed additional income to the Applicant and increased the amount of child support payable. The Applicant was also ordered to pay an equalization payment to the Respondent. This decision was upheld on appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Family Law: Support 

Lux v. Lux2020 ABCA 3 (39286)
The parties became involved in a long-distance relationship in 2001. The wife resided in Russia and the husband in Canada. The wife moved to Canada and the parties married in July 2005.  There are no children of the marriage. The parties separated in October 2013. Throughout the marriage and after separation Ms. Lux spent long periods of time in Russia with her family. She applied for retroactive and ongoing spousal support as well as a division of matrimonial property.  Mr. Lux claimed several exemptions from the division of property for assets he acquired prior to the parties’ cohabitation, and on account of inheritances received from his parents. The trial judge did not award retroactive or ongoing support for the wife, based on the short duration of the marriage and previous interim awards. The wife received a small award on the division of property. She was also entitled to half of the husband’s pension accruing from the date of marriage to the date of separation. The husband was awarded costs. The wife’s appeal was allowed in part. She was awarded spousal support for one year. The period of accrual for the pension division was extended to the date of trial. The husband’s costs award was reduced. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Tax: Motions to Dismiss 

Simon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA (39294)
The Applicant commenced an appeal in the Tax Court of Canada seeking relief related to an immigration sponsorship debt. The Respondent brought a motion to strike the notice of appeal on various grounds, including it raised no reasonable grounds of appeal, and the relief sought was outside of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction. The Tax Court judge struck the Applicant’s notice of appeal because it raised no reasonable grounds for appeal, and dismissed the appeal on the basis the court had no jurisdiction to order any of the relief sought. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the Applicant’s motion. “The miscellaneous motion is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Tax: Motions to Dismiss 

Simon v. Canada (Attorney General)2019 ABCA 498 (39295)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The miscellaneous motion is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Torts: Malicious Prosecution 

Watchel v. British Columbia2020 BCCA 100 (39310)
Mr. Watchel was charged with criminal harassment. The charge was stayed by Crown counsel shortly before the scheduled trial date. Mr. Watchel claimed he was wrongfully or maliciously prosecuted, and sought damages of approximately $10M. The B.C.S.C. held Mr. Watchel’s claim did not establish a reasonable cause of action and there was no realistic chance it might succeed. The action was dismissed. The same court further concluded it was not persuaded it had exceeded its jurisdiction, and dismissed Mr. Watchel’s application to this effect. The B.C.C.A. dismissed the appeal. In its view, the judge applied the correct legal tests and made no error warranting its intervention. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”