Carol Craig

The parties, both veterinarians, separated after a 10.5-year marriage.

The trial addressed equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

A major issue was the valuation and inclusion of the respondent's survivor interest in the applicant's pension, which the court ruled must be included in her net family property, resulting in a significant equalization payment owed to the applicant.

To satisfy this payment, the court ordered the transfer of the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home to the applicant.

The court also awarded the respondent retroactive and ongoing spousal support on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, recognizing the economic disadvantage she suffered from the marriage breakdown.

Following a family law trial regarding spousal support and property division, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a partial or full indemnity basis, arguing he was the most successful party and that the respondent acted unreasonably.

The respondent argued for full recovery costs based on divided success and an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party, having succeeded on periodic spousal support, security for support, and property division.

After considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the fees claimed, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant fixed costs of $150,000.

The applicant was largely successful at a trial on a motion to change child support and sought costs of over $193,000.

The respondent argued the fees were excessive and disproportionate.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, finding the applicant's offers triggered full recovery cost consequences.

After adjusting the applicant's counsel's hourly rate and hours claimed to be more proportional to the respondent's, the court fixed costs at $130,000.

The court also ordered that the costs award is enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as it relates entirely to child support.

The plaintiff obtained a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a motion without notice against properties owned by corporations controlled by his son, alleging the son misappropriated funds while acting as his attorney for property.

The defendants moved to set aside the CPL for failure to make full and fair disclosure, or alternatively to discharge it under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that while the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts regarding the son's legal representation, the CPL would have been granted regardless.

The court also declined to discharge the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the properties and that the balance of equities favoured maintaining the CPL.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to prohibit the respondent mother from relocating their eight-year-old child from Petawawa to Stittsville.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking permission to relocate the child pending trial.

The mother had sold her home and purchased a new one in Stittsville without prior notice to the father, contrary to their separation agreement.

The court applied the principles for interim mobility, finding that the move would drastically disrupt the status quo and that there were genuine issues for trial regarding the father's involvement and the child's views.

The court dismissed the mother's cross-motion and ordered that the child remain in Petawawa pending trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 final order to reduce her child support obligations effective January 1, 2016, due to a significant reduction in her income caused by mental health challenges and the sale of two of her dental practices.

The respondent father sought retroactive child support adjustments for 2013, 2014, and 2015, arguing the mother's income was higher than previously disclosed.

The court dismissed the father's claim for retroactive support, finding no material change in circumstances prior to 2016 and no blameworthy conduct by the mother.

The court determined the mother's income for support purposes from 2016 onwards by excluding non-recurring capital gains from the sale of her practices and applying a working capital analysis to her corporate income, resulting in a reduction of her ongoing child support obligations.

The moving party husband brought a motion to change to terminate his spousal support obligation to the responding party wife.

The parties were married for 15 years with no children, and the husband had paid support for 11 years.

The court found that the husband had fully met his support obligation, noting the wife's failure to promptly seek full-time employment post-separation and her poor financial management.

The motion was granted, and spousal support was terminated.

The father brought a motion to change previous orders regarding child support, spousal support, and access.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to his failure to comply with multiple previous court orders, including failing to pay over $60,000 in support arrears and over $50,000 in an equalization payment.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) brought a motion to enforce the support arrears.

The court granted the mother's motion to strike, finding the father had the means to pay but chose not to, and prohibited him from bringing further motions to change without leave until all arrears and costs are paid.

The court also granted the FRO's motion, ordering the father to pay $61,292.68 in arrears within 30 days and $20,000 as security within 45 days, failing which the FRO could seek his committal.

The moving party in a family law dispute sought to be declared a special party and have a litigation guardian appointed due to severe depression and anxiety.

She also sought to seal her counsel's affidavit to protect solicitor-client privilege.

The responding party opposed the motion, seeking an independent medical examination, the unsealing of the affidavit, the questioning of the moving party's psychologist, and further disclosure regarding a long-term disability claim.

The court granted the special party declaration and appointed the litigation guardian, finding the moving party incapable of instructing counsel.

The court sealed the counsel's affidavit, denied the medical examination, permitted limited questioning of the psychologist, and ordered partial disclosure of the disability claim.