Andrea Clarke

Following a family law trial, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine the exact quantum of retroactive spousal support, tax implications, and costs.

The court ordered the applicant husband to pay $86,108 in retroactive spousal support and a $36,433 catch-up payment, with no tax deductions applied to the lump sums, directing the parties to seek reassessment from the CRA.

The respondent wife was deemed the successful party at trial, having prevailed on the duration and quantum of support, and was awarded $30,000 in costs.

The moving party father brought a motion for an interim order expanding his parenting time to a week-about shared parenting schedule.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, arguing there was no material change in circumstances and that the change would be too disruptive for the child.

The court found that the previous interim order did not establish a status quo that required a material change in circumstances to vary.

Applying the maximum contact principle under the Divorce Act and Children's Law Reform Act, the court concluded it was in the child's best interests to expand parenting time, as there were no safety concerns and the father had a flexible work schedule and childcare plan.

The motion was granted.

Following the applicant's substantial success on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Despite the respondent seeking costs against the applicant, the court awarded costs to the applicant based on her success.

The respondent was ordered to pay $3,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes within 60 days.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, a restraining order, and a declaration of a beneficial interest in the family residence owned by her father-in-law (the third party respondent).

The respondent father did not participate in the trial.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, supervised access for the respondent, a restraining order, and retroactive and prospective child support based on an imputed income.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's trust and proprietary estoppel claims regarding the family residence, finding no credible evidence of financial contribution or a clear promise to transfer title.

The applicant was ordered to vacate the property and pay the third party respondent $13,640 in damages for trespass for unpaid utilities.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with previous court orders requiring financial disclosure in the context of the respondent's motion to change child support.

The court found that the respondent deliberately breached the disclosure orders, causing unnecessary delay and expense.

Rather than striking the respondent's pleadings, the court ordered him to pay a penalty of $24,900, representing $100 per day of non-compliance, failing which the applicant could return her motion to strike his pleadings.