Andrea Di Battista

The trial primarily addressed child and spousal support obligations for the parties' two-year-old son.

The court determined the parties' incomes, including imputation for both the father's corporate income and the mother's personal income, finding the father deliberately under-employed and the mother earning unreported cash.

The court adjusted child support retroactively and prospectively based on imputed incomes and a new shared parenting arrangement.

Spousal support was ordered at a reduced amount from the temporary order, with an indefinite (reviewable) duration, and a significant overpayment by the father was ordered to be repaid by the mother through set-off against ongoing support.

The Applicant father sought to lift supervised parenting time and expand his parenting schedule with his 2.5-year-old daughter.

The Respondent mother opposed, citing safety concerns, communication issues, and the father's past disrespectful conduct.

The court found that while the father had made significant improvements, continued supervision was necessary for a limited period, with a step-up schedule for increased parenting time.

The court emphasized the importance of child-focused and respectful communication between parents, particularly for a young child, and provided a roadmap for the eventual lifting of supervision based on adherence to communication protocols and other conditions.

The motion for immediate lifting of supervision was denied, but expansion of time was granted with conditions.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the pleadings of her former husband and his mother for failing to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The husband had repeatedly failed to provide valuations of his business interests and income reports over a period of nine years, offering various excuses related to his retained professionals and the pandemic.

The court found the husband's non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, striking his Answer and allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The mother-in-law's disclosure was also found deficient, but the court granted her one final opportunity to comply before her pleadings could be struck.

Following a motion to change that resulted in a shared parenting schedule, the parties sought clarification on the terms of the draft order regarding child support and arrears, and made submissions on costs.

The court ordered that child support be payable by both parties rather than set off, to preserve tax benefits, and calculated childcare arrears on an after-tax basis.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs, alleging bad faith and relying on offers to settle.

The court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not in bad faith, and noted the offers did not meet the strict requirements of the rules.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $37,000, payable in installments.

The applicant brought a motion to change a previous order, seeking implementation of an equal parenting schedule and a review of spousal support.

The respondent opposed, arguing the existing schedule was already equal and no material change had occurred.

The court found that the previous order explicitly contemplated a move to equal parenting time and a spousal support review, thus no material change was required.

The respondent was heavily criticized for persistent failures to provide full financial disclosure and for obstructive behavior regarding children's documents and activities.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering an alternating week equal parenting schedule, terminating spousal support, imputing income to the respondent due to disclosure failures, and adjusting child support retroactively.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a change in the child's primary residence, expanded access, and an urgent trial on custody and access issues.

The respondent mother had repeatedly and unilaterally denied the father access to their seven-year-old son, flagrantly disobeying multiple court orders, including consent orders.

The court found the mother's actions were harming the child and constituted alienating behaviour.

Exercising its discretion under the Family Law Rules and considering the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court ordered a change in the child's primary residence to the father, set an access schedule for the mother, and scheduled an urgent trial.

The court also awarded the father full recovery costs of $6,000 due to the mother's unreasonable conduct and non-compliance.

The appellant appealed a costs award made by an arbitrator, arguing that the arbitrator erred in law by limiting the assessment of costs to only the mediation/arbitration period, thereby excluding general steps taken in the proceedings prior to that phase.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the issue raised a question of law.

The court determined that the arbitrator misapplied Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, which, as interpreted by case law, does not prevent a decision-maker from considering costs related to general litigation steps not requiring specific judicial intervention.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the arbitrator for further consideration of costs, specifically those related to general steps and a misapprehended reserved costs order.

Following a 16‑year marriage, the applicant sought divorce, custody arrangements, sale of the matrimonial home, and equalization of property.

The respondent sought sole custody, spousal support, exclusive possession of the home, and unequal division of net family property.

The court determined the parties separated in July 2009 and ordered the sale of the heavily mortgaged matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

Joint custody of the twins was ordered with a staged parenting schedule based on a s.30 assessment under the Children’s Law Reform Act, while the eldest child could arrange her own schedule.

The court attributed income of $536,000 to the applicant for support purposes, ordered child support of $5,000 monthly (interim pending review), and spousal support of $10,016 monthly.

The respondent was also granted an unequal equalization adjustment due to dissipation of assets.