Avneet Virk

The respondent was largely successful in defending her former husband's appeal and pursuing her cross-appeal.

She sought full recovery costs of $40,422.60.

The Court of Appeal awarded her costs of $38,000, ordering that 25% of the award be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office as it was proportionate to the support-related issues at stake.

The appellant appealed an order settling amounts owing pursuant to a previous family law judgment, arguing errors in the calculation of post-judgment interest on an equalization payment and seeking credit for spousal support paid.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the motion judge erred by including spousal support in her income when calculating her retroactive child support obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding no error in the interest calculation.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that under the Child Support Guidelines, spousal support received must be deducted when calculating a payor's income for child support purposes.

The appellant's motion for leave to appeal costs was also dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking credits towards an equalization payment and retroactive child support, while the respondent sought post-judgment interest on the equalization payment and the removal of a temporary restraining order.

The court denied the applicant's request for credits for periodic spousal support and mortgage arrears, but ordered him to pay his half of a lien and legal costs.

The court awarded the respondent post-judgment interest at 3% on the equalization payment due to the applicant's deliberate delay.

The applicant was awarded retroactive child support, which was set off against the amount he owed the respondent.

The temporary restraining order against the respondent was maintained.

The applicant wife commenced a divorce application in 2011, including claims for spousal support and equalization.

A temporary order in 2011 required the respondent husband to pay spousal support and restrained him from dissipating RSP funds.

The respondent ceased support payments in July 2018 due to health and employment issues, then moved to terminate or reduce support and stay arrears, and to withdraw funds from his RSP accounts.

The applicant cross-moved to dismiss the respondent's motion, for interim disbursements, and for a non-dissipation order.

The court addressed the respondent's request to reduce/stay support and the applicant's request for a non-dissipation order.

The respondent established a prima facie case for reduced support due to changed circumstances but failed the "clean hands" test by unilaterally stopping payments and transferring/withdrawing RSP funds in violation of the 2011 order.

Consequently, the respondent's motion to reduce or stay temporary spousal support was dismissed.

The applicant's cross-motion for a non-dissipation order was granted, prohibiting further dissipation of RSP funds, with specific exceptions for ongoing support payments and a partial payment of arrears.

The balance of arrears was stayed pending trial.