3 total
Interim spousal support of $5,000 per month ordered based on historical income and imputed income.
The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, retroactive support, and security for support.
The parties separated after a 15-year marriage with no children, and there was a significant income disparity between them.
The court found the wife had a needs-based entitlement to support but declined to base the quantum on the husband's anomalous 2020 income or to order a 50/50 net disposable income split.
The court imputed an income of $60,000 to the wife and based the husband's income on his 2019 earnings of $280,000, ordering interim spousal support of $5,000 per month retroactive to the date of notice.
Claims for further retroactive support were dismissed as premature pending full financial disclosure.
Successful applicant on school enrollment motion awarded $15,000 in costs after beating offer to settle.
Following a successful motion by the applicant to have the parties' children attend school in-person in Etobicoke, the parties made written submissions on costs.
The applicant sought $22,404 on a full recovery basis from the date of his offer to settle.
The respondent argued costs should be reserved or limited to $9,000.
The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs and had met the terms of his offer to settle.
Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicant $15,000 in costs, payable in installments.
Mother's attempt to change children's schools to Meaford denied as an improper relocation; children ordered to attend Etobicoke schools.
The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' two children, both of whom have special needs, attend in-person schooling at their current schools in Etobicoke.
The respondent mother opposed, seeking to enroll the children in schools in Meaford where she had temporarily relocated, or alternatively, that they continue virtual learning.
The court found that the mother's proposed change of schools amounted to a relocation under the Divorce Act, which she had not properly initiated.
The court held that the mother failed to demonstrate that the proposed new schools would better meet the children's special needs than their current schools, and ordered that the children attend their Etobicoke schools in person.