Aaron M. Mastervick

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding decision-making and parenting time for their seven-year-old daughter.

The father sought sole decision-making and the continuation of a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule, while the mother sought sole decision-making, a reduction in the father's parenting time, and a change to the child's surname.

The court found that neither parent should have sole decision-making due to the risk of marginalizing the other, and instead ordered a parallel parenting regime with divided domains of authority.

The court maintained the 2/2/3 schedule to provide stability and dismissed the mother's request to change the child's surname.

Following an appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The respondent on appeal was awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's orders regarding prospective and retroactive spousal and child support, as well as the trial costs award.

The trial judge had imputed income to the respondent due to income fluctuations and denied retroactive support because the appellant's bankruptcy had relieved her of the tax debt that caused her financial hardship.

The Court of Appeal applied a deferential standard of review, finding no material error or serious misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an updated section 30 parenting assessment prior to trial.

The applicant father opposed the motion, arguing that the conflict between the parties had not changed and that the assessor could provide updated opinions via oral evidence at trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no significant change in circumstances to justify a further intrusive assessment and noting that the trial judge could adequately determine the issues with the original report and viva voce evidence.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding father.

This divorce proceeding addressed the applicant wife's claims for ongoing and retroactive spousal and child support, and a post-separation accounting, as well as the respondent husband's request for termination or reduction of spousal support and credit for overpayments.

The court granted the divorce, imputed income to both parties, and ordered the husband to pay ongoing spousal support of $6,500 per month, a reduction from the temporary order of $8,500.

All claims for retroactive spousal and child support by both parties were dismissed.

The wife's claims against the added respondent (husband's common-law partner) were also dismissed.

The husband was ordered to maintain health insurance for the wife and designate her as an irrevocable beneficiary on a life insurance policy.

The applicant wife and respondent husband have been litigating their family law matter for over 12 years.

The applicant brought a motion seeking extensive disclosure from the husband and his business partner, $150,000 in interim disbursements under Rule 24(12), and payment of past support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure, termination of child support for their 24-year-old daughter, and a variation of a 2008 temporary spousal support order to impute income to the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion in its entirety, finding she failed to meet the test for interim disbursements and that the disclosure requests were either already satisfied or unsupported by evidence.

The court granted the husband's request to terminate child support as the child was no longer living with either parent and was employed.

The court also ordered the applicant to provide disclosure.

However, the court declined to vary the temporary spousal support order on the eve of trial, directing the parties to proceed to trial in 2018.

In a family law costs endorsement arising from an acrimonious custody dispute, the applicant sought costs after the respondent withdrew a motion to change a prior parenting order.

The court declined to fix costs immediately and instead adjourned the costs motion to be heard after June 30, 2015, together with issues relating to access.

The court reasoned that leaving costs outstanding could incentivize both parties to work toward resolving access in the child's best interests.

The court also permitted further evidence regarding access and an updated report from the child psychiatrist.

On an interim family law motion, the responding spouse sought partition and sale of a non‑matrimonial rental property, interim disbursements to retain an income valuation expert, imputation of income to the other spouse, and interim child and spousal support.

The court declined to order partition and sale on an interim motion, finding the issue better determined at trial given disputed equity and mortgage claims involving family members.

The court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to order partial interim disbursements to fund an income analysis.

Applying s. 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, the court imputed limited income for certain employment benefits but rejected broader lifestyle‑based imputations tied to discretionary gifts from family or a family‑owned business.

Interim child support was ordered based on the adjusted income, with retroactive support, while determination of interim spousal support was deferred pending updated calculations.

The appellant father appealed a trial costs order of $185,000, which the trial judge directed to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) as 'lump sum spousal support'.

The father argued this was an error because spousal support was never claimed or litigated.

The Court of Appeal agreed that characterizing the costs as spousal support was an error, but upheld the trial judge's intention that the costs be enforced by the FRO, as child support was a live issue at trial.

The Court amended the order to characterize the costs simply as 'support'.

The father's other grounds of appeal regarding the quantum of costs and procedural fairness were dismissed.

The mother's motion to quash the appeal for the father's alleged failure to post proper security for costs was also dismissed.

Following a lengthy family law trial, the successful party sought over $234,000 in costs.

The court applied Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered settlement offers, trial success, litigation conduct, and the reasonableness of the bill of costs.

Although the successful party beat her offer to settle and was entitled to substantial recovery, the court reduced the claimed amount, including reducing junior counsel trial time by 50% for fairness.

The court ultimately fixed costs at $185,000 all-inclusive and ordered that the award be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office as a lump sum spousal support order due to the opposing party’s history of non‑compliance with court orders.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a prior final order seeking guideline child support from the mother based on an alleged material change in circumstances and a significant increase in the mother's income.

The court found no material change in the parenting arrangement since the 2002 order, concluding the children continued to spend approximately equal time with each parent.

The father's request for child support was therefore dismissed, and the mother's counterclaim for retroactive child support during a temporary period of reduced access was also dismissed for lack of pleadings and absence of a material change.

However, the court allowed the mother's claim in part for arrears of section 7 extraordinary expenses under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, ordering the father to pay his proportionate share for certain necessary and reasonable expenses dating back to the original order.