Purchase This Domain

Civil procedure — Motions to amend judgments — Rule 59.06(1) — Husband sought to amend spousal support award, alleging an accidental slip or omission in the court’s prior judgment — Does Rule 59.06(1) permit amendments to correct alleged errors in judicial reasoning or analysis? — Rule 59.06(1) applies to clerical, mathematical, or oversight errors, not substantive judicial errors — Motion dismissedStatutory interpretation — Rules of Civil Procedure — Accidental slip or omission — Interpretation of Rule 59.06(1) — Husband argued that the court omitted relevant factors in calculating spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines — What constitutes an “accidental slip or omission” under Rule 59.06(1)? — Rule 59.06(1) does not apply to substantive errors in judicial reasoningFamily — Spousal support — Lump sum awards — Husband sought to reduce spousal support award by alleging errors in the court’s prior judgment — Is the motion to amend properly characterized as a substantive appeal rather than a correction of an accidental slip or omission? — Motion dismissed as an improper use of Rule 59.06(1)Civil procedure — Costs — Motion dismissed — Wife awarded costs of $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST — Entitlement to costs determined based on the outcome of the motion

Criminal infractions — Sexual assault — Dangerous offender designation — Indeterminate sentence — Appellant convicted of sexual assault and break and enter — Trial judge found appellant to be a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence — Did the trial judge err in imposing an indeterminate sentence? — Protection of society as paramount consideration — Indeterminate sentence upheld due to high risk of re-offending and lack of control over offending behaviourEvidence — Sexual assault — Reasonableness of verdict — Appellant argued trial judge’s verdict was unreasonable due to lack of evidence of forced entry and implausibility of complainant’s testimony — Trial judge found complainant’s evidence clear and compelling — Corroborative evidence considered but not required — Was the verdict unreasonable or tainted by error? — Verdict upheld as reasonable and supported by evidenceCriminal procedure — Search warrant — Validity of search warrant — Appellant challenged search warrant on grounds of insufficient evidence in the ITO and alleged misrepresentations — Trial judge conducted full analysis of ITO and found sufficient grounds for warrant issuance — Did the trial judge err in ruling on the search warrant? — Search warrant upheld as valid

Family — Spousal support — Post-separation adjustments — Characterization of payments — Moving party sought directions to classify post-separation adjustments as spousal support to exempt them from the automatic stay under Rule 63.01(1) — Court declined to provide directions due to lack of procedural authority and absence of prior characterization by the trial judge — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 63.01(1)Civil procedure — Automatic stay — Lifting of stay — Post-separation adjustments — Moving party sought to lift the automatic stay on post-separation adjustments owed by the respondent — Court considered financial hardship, ability to repay, and merits of the appeal — Stay lifted due to serious risk of non-payment by the respondent — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 63.01(5)Civil procedure — Stay pending appeal — Retroactive spousal support and equalization payments — Moving party sought a stay of her obligation to pay retroactive spousal support and equalization payments pending appeal — Court declined to address the request as the stay on post-separation adjustments was lifted, resolving the issue — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 63.01(1)Civil procedure — Family law — Balancing factors in stay motions — Financial hardship, ability to repay, and merits of appeal — Court applied a flexible approach in family law disputes, emphasizing the risk of non-payment and the interests of justice — Principles from Peper v. Peper and Popa v. Popa applied