Andrea L. Di Battista

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.

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.