36384    Susan Scheuermann Volcko v. John B. Volcko

Family law – Family assets – Business assets

On appeal from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The parties were married in 1990 and began living apart in 2006, when the husband moved out of the matrimonial home. There are two adult children of the marriage, one of whom is a dependant university undergraduate student.  In the early years of the marriage, the wife had been a high income earner, but by the time of trial, she had been out of the paid workforce since 1998. It had been mutually agreed that the wife would leave her employment to focus on raising the children, allowing the husband to have greater employment flexibility. The husband earned approximately $686,000 per annum. At trial, the date of separation, the characterization of the husband’s employment shares, prospective and retroactive child and spousal support and the division of certain matrimonial assets were in issue. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ordered that husband pay spousal support of $15,000 per month. The Court declared the husband’s shares in his employer’s company to be business assets and exempt from division. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed except with respect to spousal support, which was increased to $20,000 per month retroactive to November 2013. The husband’s cross-appeal on costs was dismissed.

36422    Albert Ngambo v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law – Miscellaneous motions – Private informations

On appeal from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed miscellaneous motions brought by the applicant, Mr. Ngambo. One of the motions concerned an appeal from an administrative decision by the Provincial Court refusing to receive the informations that Mr. Ngambo wanted to file against certain judges, Crown prosecutors and police officers. The Provincial Court found that the informations were vexatious, as did the Court of Queen’s Bench. In his second motion, Mr. Ngambo sought an order for the production of a hearing transcript. He had also asked the Court to order an adjournment. The Court refused. Finally, the Court of Queen’s Bench refused to order that legal aid be provided to Mr. Ngambo, explaining that it did not have jurisdiction to do so. The Court of Appeal also dismissed miscellaneous motions brought by Mr. Ngambo.

36424   J.B. v. Minister of Social Services, on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan

Status of persons – Child protection

On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan. The applicant first became involved in a tumultuous relationship with the mother of his children in 2007. Both parents had substance abuse problems and there were numerous incidents where the police were called to respond to allegations of domestic violence. Their first son was born in 2008 and their second in 2010. The Minister’s involvement with the father and the mother was extensive, including numerous protection hearing applications and residential and parental services agreements. Pursuant to an order dated January 13, 2013, the children were in the care of the Minister under s. 35(1)(c) of The Child and Family Services Act, S.S. 1989-90, c. C-7.2. The parents were granted three supervised hours per week with the boys. The children spent time both in foster homes and transition shelters while the parents had weekly access and were undergoing counselling. The Minister applied for a status review hearing. It was conceded by all parties that the children remained in continued need of protection. The mother sought a long term committal order to give her time to address her parenting inadequacies. The father requested a six-month temporary order for the children to remain in the care of the Minister to allow him time to find work and to address the protection issues that concerned the Minister. The Minister sought a permanent committal order. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan granted a permanent committal order and ordered that the applicant father’s access be terminated. The mother’s visits were to continue until adoption or further order. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed.

36347  Michèle Closson, Jean-Paul Duquette v. City of Saint-Jérôme

Municipal law – Land use planning and development – By-laws

On appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal. Between 1997 and 1999, the applicants, Jean-Paul Duquette and Michèle Closson, became owners, [translation] “at their own risk” and “without legal warranty”, of three multiple-unit immovables built in 1987 by a person not party to the proceedings. At the time the immovables were built, they contravened the fire protection provisions of the National Fire Code and the National Building Code.

In November 2008, the city filed a motion with the Superior Court under s. 227 of the Act respecting land use planning and development, CQLR, c. A-19.1, to force the applicants to perform the work required to make the immovables compliant with the standards. The Superior Court allowed the motion and the applicants’ appeal was dismissed.