Ariel Shimon Kirzner

The applicant sought an interim disbursement of $25,000 to retain an expert to review the respondent's income report in a motion to change child support.

The respondent, a church minister, had previously agreed to an imputed income of $300,000 but now sought a reduction based on a self-retained expert's report.

The court found prima facie merit in the applicant's argument that the respondent was attempting to relitigate the initial proceeding and that there were significant credibility and disclosure issues regarding the respondent's complex financial affairs, which were intertwined with his church and other businesses.

The court granted the interim disbursement, finding it necessary to level the playing field and that the respondent had the ability to pay while the applicant did not.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion for contempt against the respondent mother for alleged breaches of a final family law order, including terms requiring joint decision-making for the children's medical care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, no material misapprehension of evidence, and no denial of procedural fairness by the motion judge.

The court emphasized that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law and that the motion judge properly exercised his discretion in managing the hearing and dismissing the ill-conceived motion.

This endorsement determined the lump sum child and spousal support payable by the Respondent to the Applicant, and fixed costs.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay lump sum child support of $197,139 and spousal support of $44,411, totaling $241,550, based on the low end of the SSAG range given the duration of support.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs, but the court awarded enhanced costs of $50,000, all inclusive, due to the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, including failure to provide disclosure and non-participation, which significantly increased the Applicant's legal costs.

The court found the Respondent's conduct unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith.

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 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.

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.