Bryan Smith

The applicant husband brought a motion for interim spousal support and shared use of a Florida condominium following the breakdown of a 31-year marriage.

The core dispute involved determining the respondent wife's income from her corporation.

The court imputed the wife's income at $720,000 and the husband's at $180,000, ordering the wife to pay $20,000 per month in interim spousal support.

The husband's request for shared use of the Florida condominium was dismissed as he had alternative housing and timeshares available.

The applicant father sought to review and terminate spousal support and adjust child support pursuant to a 2012 Separation Agreement.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in support to 2013, alleging the father hid income from the sale of his business.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father and denied the retroactive claim due to the mother's failure to give effective notice.

The court imputed $390,000 in annual income to the mother, finding she was intentionally underemployed and failed to utilize her substantial investment portfolio to generate income, despite her obligations under the Separation Agreement.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate after one additional year, and child support was adjusted prospectively based on the parties' current incomes.

The applicant sought to adjourn the scheduled trial date in a complex family law and trust proceeding.

The respondent opposed the adjournment.

The court found that the trial date had to be vacated because the parties were not ready, there had been no meaningful settlement conference, and updated financial statements had not been provided.

The court vacated the trial date and scheduled a case conference to set a new timetable and trial date.

The applicant sought costs of over $1 million and pre-judgment interest following a complex 19-day family law trial where she was largely successful.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full recovery costs based on bad faith, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not reaching the threshold of bad faith.

The court awarded the applicant $936,625 in costs and $195,000 in pre-judgment interest, noting the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct increased the complexity and length of the proceedings.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a 2008 separation agreement, alleging the respondent husband deliberately misrepresented the value of his business interests at the date of marriage to eliminate his equalization payment obligation.

The court found the husband, an astute investor, intentionally failed to disclose that the market value of his holding company's investments was significantly lower than the book value he presented.

The separation agreement was set aside under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the parties' net family properties, finding the husband's date of marriage business value was nil, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $1,055,758.

The court also awarded retroactive child support of $345,000 and compensatory spousal support of $475,000, imputing significant corporate pre-tax income to the husband.

The applicant sought costs of $25,000 following a successful motion for temporary spousal and child support.

The respondent conceded the applicant's entitlement to costs but argued for a reduced amount of $18,386 due to duplication of counsel and divided success on other issues, such as the sale of properties.

The court agreed with the respondent's proposed reductions for duplication of work and noted the divided success.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $19,199 to the applicant.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home following a dispute, after which she left the home with the children.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession or, alternatively, a nesting arrangement.

The court found that the children were not at risk of harm and that both parents were involved caregivers.

The court dismissed both motions for exclusive possession and ordered a temporary nesting arrangement where the parents would rotate occupying the home with the children.

In a high‑income family law proceeding, the applicant sought temporary child and spousal support following separation.

The respondent argued his income had fallen significantly due to banking restrictions and business challenges and urged the court to base support on a projected income of approximately $1.6 million rather than his prior line 150 income exceeding $5 million.

The court held that, on an interim motion without oral evidence or credibility findings, the respondent had not established that his proposed lower income fairly reflected the money available for support under the Child Support Guidelines.

The court therefore relied on the respondent’s 2014 line 150 income to calculate temporary support.

Temporary child support and spousal support were ordered accordingly.

Following a complex family law trial involving challenges to a marriage contract, equalization, support arrears, and related financial claims, the successful party sought substantial costs.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found that the unsuccessful party acted in bad faith, including failing to provide disclosure, refusing reasonable settlement offers, and engaging in conduct that prolonged the litigation.

The court held that such conduct justified full recovery costs.

After deducting certain conference-related and administrative charges, the court awarded substantial costs and prejudgment interest to the successful party and costs to added respondents from the date of their settlement offer.