Notable Work

We successfully argued for the validation of a Hague Convention application filed by the defendant father, ensuring it met critical timing requirements despite procedural challenges. This decision preserved his right to seek the immediate return of his child without additional burdens under Article 12 of the Hague Convention.

We successfully argued for a reasonable costs award on behalf of the applicant father, with the Court of King's Bench agreeing that Column 1 costs of $3,375 were appropriate rather than the $60,785 sought by the self-represented respondent mother following dismissal of the father's application for leave to appeal a family arbitration award.

We successfully defended against an application for leave to appeal a family arbitration award that granted the mother's relocation request. The Court dismissed all proposed grounds of appeal, finding no viable questions of law and affirming the arbitrator's thorough assessment of the child's best interests.

We successfully argued on behalf of the estate that the joint tenancy on a matrimonial property had been severed by conduct prior to the husband's death. The Court found that the parties' actions—including their separation, ongoing divorce proceedings, and the wife's explicit threat of legal action to force sale of the property—clearly demonstrated they were treating the property as tenants in common rather than joint tenants.

We successfully defended against an appeal related to the interpretation of arbitration agreement appeal rights. The Court of Appeal upheld that when parties choose an arbitration clause referencing "remedies in accordance with subsection 44 and/or 45 of the Arbitration Act" without specifically selecting appeal rights for questions of fact or mixed fact and law, the more limited appeal rights requiring court permission apply.

We successfully represented a mother seeking to enforce an agreement to purchase the matrimonial home despite missed deadlines in a Consent Order. The Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's decision, recognizing that agreements between counsel regarding flexibility of deadlines should be honored, particularly when circumstances make strict compliance impossible.