Carol E. Struthers

This endorsement addresses a procedural conference concerning the unilateral cancellation of a motion date booked via Calendly.

The court emphasized that opposing counsel cannot unilaterally cancel a scheduled hearing date without consent, as per the Central West (CW) Notice to the Profession and Parties.

The judge clarified that the court relies on counsel's undertakings in Calendly regarding attempts to agree on mutually convenient dates, and that a consent from opposing counsel is not a prerequisite for booking a motion.

The court strongly condemned the abuse of the Calendly scheduling system, outlining various forms of misconduct, and warned of serious consequences, including cost awards or other sanctions, for non-compliance with scheduling rules and undertakings.

Following separation after an eight‑year marriage with three children, the applicant commenced proceedings after the respondent unilaterally reduced child and spousal support agreed to in minutes of settlement.

The principal issue at trial was the respondent’s income for support purposes, where evidence showed undeclared gratuities and reduced post‑separation employment.

The court found the respondent intentionally under‑employed and imputed income based on historical earnings and earning capacity.

Child support was recalculated based on imputed income, and spousal support continued at the amount agreed in the parties’ settlement.

The applicant’s claim for equalization of alleged missing cash kept in the matrimonial home was dismissed for insufficient proof.

The appellant husband appealed a trial decision finding that he and his wife owed a valid debt of $220,000 to the wife's brother under a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the documentary evidence demonstrated the funds were a gift to the wife, not a true loan, and dismissed the brother's action.

The Court also dismissed the wife's cross-appeal, finding that prior written instructions did not constitute a valid domestic contract to exclude the funds from net family property, and that an equal division of net family properties was not unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The Court ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment and directed the buyout or sale of the matrimonial home.