3 total
The applicant's claims for equalization, spousal support, and setting aside the divorce were dismissed following a short marriage.
The applicant sought to set aside a divorce order, equalization of net family properties, and spousal support.
The court found the applicant not credible, noting his history of deception and disregard for financial disclosure.
The court questioned the validity of his prior Russian divorce and dismissed all his claims, citing the short duration of the marriage, the applicant's dishonesty regarding his financial state, and his minimal contributions to the relationship.
Temporary child and spousal support ordered based on respondent's imputed income from a credit application.
The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support.
The parties disagreed on the respondent's income, as he operated an automotive business and co-mingled personal and business expenses.
The court imputed the respondent's income at $110,876.00 based on a credit application and ordered temporary child support of $1,549.00 per month and spousal support of $1,108.00 per month.
The court declined to make the order retroactive as the respondent had been covering many family expenses since separation.
Court finds parental alienation but maintains primary residence with mother with expanded access.
A custody and access trial concerning two children following a high-conflict separation.
The applicant alleged the respondent posed safety risks and sought supervised access, while the respondent alleged parental alienation and sought custody.
The court found the applicant had engaged in persistent conduct undermining the children’s relationship with the respondent, including numerous unsubstantiated allegations and interference with contact.
Applying the best interests test under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court maintained the children’s primary residence with the applicant but implemented expanded access for the respondent and reunification counselling for one child.
The order was framed as temporary pending resolution of financial issues and a possible updated report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
