Fox v. Muise, 2024, NSSC 50 Judge: Honourable Justice Theresa M Forgeron Subject: Child Support, Unjust Enrichment Summary: Leonard Fox and Margaret Muise have two children born in 2001 and 2004 from a common-law relationship that ended in 2010. In 2012-2013, a contested hearing decided on parenting, child support, and unjust enrichment. Mr. Fox seeks to […]
Our NS Family Law team provides summaries of recent cases which have appeared in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
Our NS Family Law team provides summaries of recent cases which have appeared in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
In Babin v. C.J.M. Dieppe Investments Ltd. and TG 378 Gauvin Ltd., 2019 NBCA 44, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal made clear that it will not interfere lightly with a motion judge’s discretionary decision to grant partial summary judgment, particularly where a decision on the merits is correct in law. The Court of Appeal […]
In Linda Trevors v. Anne Doucet, Lea Allard, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada Company, and Co-operators General Insurance,1 (hereinafter “Trevors v. Doucet”) the moving party applied for summary judgment early in the proceeding. Discovery had not yet occurred. The applicants were successful on the motion despite allegations it was premature. Background On May 16, 2015, a head […]
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure in Prince Edward Island, whether a default judgment can be set aside is a discretionary decision which the court may grant on such terms as are just.
We have recently learned that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will be re-visiting the January 2016 decision granting default judgment in the case of Jane Doe 464533 v. ND.
As of January 1, 2017, Rule 22 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court for ‘Summary Judgment’ was repealed and replaced. Rule 22 for Summary Judgment has now been transformed from a means to weed out unmeritorious claims to a significant alternative model of adjudication.
It is relatively commonplace for corporations to allow their corporate officers to also use the company vehicle for personal use. In MacInnis v Rayner & Raylink, 2016 PESC 40, the PEI Supreme Court addressed the circumstances in which a court might pierce the corporate veil to find that the individual corporate officer is the true owner of the vehicle.