Billions of dollars invested, not a penny lost.

program
Court gives thumbs down
to indirect purchasers
PAGE 9
attracts
many male
applicants

CRISTIN SCHMITZ OTTAWA

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) may be asked to settle a clash between appeal courts over whether interim orders under the Divorce Act can be appealed as-of-right — or only with leave.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently weighed in on the important issue— reaffirming that in Ontario, at least for now, such interim orders may only be appealed with leave pursuant to s. 19(1) (b) of the provincial Courts of Justice Act (CJA). Section 19(1)(b) stipulates that interlocutory Superior Court orders require leave.

“The implications are that the law in Ontario that has existed for the past 17 years hasn’t changed,” remarked Charles Beall of Toronto’s Bales Beall, who is co-counsel with Karon Bales for the appellant husband, Claude Elgner. Beall told The Lawyers Weekly their client is considering whether to apply for leave to appeal to the SCC.

Elgner wants to appeal an interim
spousal support order from December
2009 that requires him to pay $110,000
per month to his estranged wife, Carol,
plus nearly $3.4 million in retroactive
support — one of the highest spousal sup-
port awards in Canada.

Elgner applied to appeal as-of-right but a single judge of the Divisional Court held that leave is required and dismissed his motion. A Divisional Court panel agreed that leave is required to appeal interim Divorce Act orders.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court order on June 29.

Beall noted that the court’s ruling stands in sharp contrast to that of the appeal courts of B.C., Quebec and Saskatchewan which have ruled that leave is not required to appeal interim orders under the Divorce Act — notwithstanding any leave requirements specified by the provincial rules of court.

Toronto’s Julie Hannaford, who repre-
sents the respondent wife along with
Golnaz Simaei, Harold Niman and Van-
essa Amyot, told The Lawyers Weekly
“what’s important about the Court of
Appeal’s decision is that, in our view, it
puts to rest the question as to whether
there is a direct right of appeal. Frankly, it
was our view that that question really was
a non-question and…that that question
was resolved many years ago.”
Added Niman, “the result reinforces
Ont. CA nixes as-of-right
interim order appeals
See Interim Page 8
OTTAWA: N.B. commercial lawyer Robert Goguen told The Lawyers Weekly he suspects Divorce Act reforms may be
coming. B.C. family law practitioner Kerry-Lynne Findlay told us she will “fight” to keep children’s best interests as the
cornerstone in custody/access cases.
ROY GROGAN FOR THE LAWYERS WEEKLY

See story on page 3

THOMAS CLARIDGE TORONTO

After being in operation for just over two years, the Ontario lawyers’ Parental Leave Assistance Program (PLAP) has approved 138 applications for the program, which pays up to $9,000 in benefits to Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) members.

In an annual report released at the law society’s June Convocation, the Equity Initiatives Department said the program, launched in March 2009, approved 50 applications that year, 68 in 2010 and another 20 by last May 27.

Although the program was a key element in nine recommendations by LSUC’s Retention of Women Working Group, 34 of the approved applications were from male lawyers— 26 sole practitioners and eight from small firms. In its May 2008 report to Convocation, the working group recommended budgeting $600,000 for the program in each year of a three-year pilot period, based on an Eckler Ltd. actuarial report which estimated that about 60 lawyers would be approved in each of 2009, 2010 and 2011.

To be eligible for the benefits, an applicant must be a birth or adoptive parent, a member in good standing, a sole practitioner or a partner in a firm of five or fewer lawyers and have no access to other maternity, parental or adoption financial benefits under public or private plans or employment insurance. As well, an applicant must “cease to engage in remunerative work or to prac-