Andrea L. Di Battista

The applicant father brought a motion for an order requiring the respondent mother to provide outstanding financial disclosure, including corporate financial statements and an updated Form 13.1 Financial Statement.

The court found that the respondent was not required to provide corporate statements for a partial fiscal year but ordered her to provide the statement for the completed fiscal year and an updated financial statement with proof of year-to-date income.

The court also admonished the respondent for uploading unfiled materials to Case Center and awarded costs of $4,000 to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order that the children attend a new school in her catchment area.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for the children to remain at their current school.

The court reviewed the principles for school placement and found that the evidence did not establish that one school was clearly better than the other.

Emphasizing the children's best interests and the need for stability, the court ordered that the children remain at their current school, as there was no good reason to disrupt their established educational environment.

The appellant mother appealed an order directing the pre-trial sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

She argued the sale would prejudice the best interests of her autistic child, who had lived there since birth.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh expert evidence confirming that moving would be a high-level stressor for the child.

Applying the palpable and overriding error standard, the court found the motion judge erred in ordering the sale before the resolution of the Family Law Act claims, as it would defeat the mother's claims for exclusive possession and a vesting order.

The appeal was allowed and the sale orders were set aside.

The moving party brought a motion to review a single judge's decision dismissing his motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal.

The moving party argued the judge placed undue emphasis on his troubling explanation for the delay and erred in finding no merit in the proposed appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact and agreeing that the correct legal test was applied.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a summary judgment order that declared certain joint accounts passed by right of survivorship to the responding party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that while the delay was short, the moving party's explanation for the delay was troubling given his recent experience as appellate counsel.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in finding overwhelming evidence that the testator intended the joint accounts to pass to the responding party.

Following a family law motion involving child support, investment accounting, and financial disclosure, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Both parties argued they were successful: the respondent emphasized obtaining retroactive child support, entitlement to the Child Tax Benefit, and accounting for investment funds, while the applicant emphasized the court’s refusal to impute the higher income alleged by the respondent.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court concluded that neither party achieved complete success and that the motion produced divided results.

In the absence of formal offers to settle and considering the mixed outcomes on the substantive issues, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking retroactive child support, imputation of income, section 7 expenses, and financial disclosure relating to investment income.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the father under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines where he had been unemployed for several years and relied partly on investment income and alleged parental gifts.

Applying the framework in Drygala v. Pauli, the court found insufficient evidence on the motion record to determine intentional underemployment or to impute significant additional income beyond acknowledged investment income.

An interim income of $29,000 was imputed pending trial, resulting in guideline child support of $423 per month for two children retroactive to November 1, 2012.

The court also ordered disclosure of investment records, repayment of withheld investment interest to the mother, contribution to section 7 expenses, and preservation of family property.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking disclosure from the respondent and a non-party family corporation to assist a retained valuator in assessing the respondent’s corporate interest and income for support purposes.

The court held that broad disclosure is appropriate where there are concerns that income from a closely held family business may be understated or manipulated.

Applying the “semblance of relevance” test and emphasizing the importance of full financial disclosure in family law, the court found the requested corporate and personal records relevant to valuation and income analysis.

The court ordered the respondent and the corporation to produce the requested documents and directed that the confidentiality agreement governing disclosure be amended to clarify that it also covered the valuator’s income analysis.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding spousal support to the respondent, challenging the trial judge's credibility findings and factual determinations regarding the respondent's immigration status and employment prospects.

The trial judge had found the appellant to be untruthful and accepted the respondent's evidence that she would suffer reduced career opportunities in South Korea due to the cultural stigma of a failed interracial marriage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding that the trial judge fully explained why the severe economic disadvantage suffered by the respondent justified a support award outside the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.