Ariel Kirzner

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought equalization of net family properties, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent, who suffered from untreated alcoholism, had been terminated from his employment due to unexplained absences and refused to participate in the proceedings.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $220,150.70 but declined to order an unequal division of property, finding the high threshold of unconscionability was not met.

The court imputed an income of $127,307 to the respondent, finding his termination resulted from intentional unemployment rather than a medical inability to work.

Given the respondent's failure to pay support since separation and threats to avoid his obligations, the court ordered that both child and spousal support be paid as a lump sum, secured by a charge on the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $18,691.83 after successfully defending the respondent's motion for contempt.

The court found the respondent's motion was frivolous, brought in bad faith to coerce a money payment, and part of a campaign of harassment.

The court awarded the full amount claimed on a full indemnity basis.

While the court declined to deem the costs enforceable as support, it ordered that the respondent may not file any further motions or proceedings against the applicant until the costs order is satisfied.

The court reconsidered its previous costs decision after receiving late submissions from the self-represented respondent, who had initially sent them to the wrong email address.

The court maintained its view on costs, ordering the respondent to pay $18,691.83 to the applicant.

However, the court accepted the respondent's argument that an order preventing him from taking further steps or filing further proceedings must be sought in a separate motion or application.