Catherine Mary Hibberd

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The respondent father argued he met the 40% shared parenting threshold under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, warranting a reduction in support.

The court found the father failed to establish he met the threshold and ordered full guideline child support based on his income of $103,000.

Spousal support was denied due to insufficient funds.

The court also ordered the children to attend public school unless the mother's family continued to fund their private school tuition.

Following a motion to change spousal support where success was divided, the applicant sought costs on the basis of beating her December 2021 offer to settle.

The respondent argued for a no-costs order.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) but reduced the amount claimed for the period after the offer by 50% to reflect proportionality and the respondent's genuine settlement efforts.

The applicant was awarded total costs of $137,151.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change seeking to step down and terminate spousal support, arguing material changes in circumstances including increased parenting time, his significantly increased income, and the responding party's full-time employment.

The court found that material changes had occurred but held that the responding party's strong compensatory claim had not yet been satisfied due to her ongoing disproportionate share of parenting responsibilities and career sacrifices.

The court varied the prior consent order by continuing spousal support at the current indexed amount of $3,500 per month until the older children graduate high school, after which it will step down to $1,500 per month until the youngest child graduates.

The parties cohabited for 16 years and had two children.

Following separation, the applicant sought child support, section 7 expenses, and enforcement of a trust agreement regarding a property, while the respondent sought spousal support, equalization, and a trust interest in the applicant's properties.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and his concealment of corporate interests, ordering retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent's claims for spousal support, equalization, and property interests were dismissed, as were the applicant's claims for a restraining order and reimbursement under the trust agreement, which was found to be statute-barred.

On a family law motion brought by the mother, the court ordered temporary ongoing child support, related insurance relief, and disclosure, while adjourning the claim for retroactive child support for earlier years.

The court refused a broad adjournment sought by the father despite counsel illness and late file transfer issues, holding that the child’s entitlement to support and the mandatory application of the Child Support Guidelines justified determining current support immediately.

Pending fuller disclosure, the court used the father’s 2018 line 150 income rather than the lower 2019 line 15000 amount or the mother’s proposed gross-income calculation.

The court also held that s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines did not apply on the parenting record before it.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court found the applicant was largely successful and that her offers to settle were as or more favourable than the final order on most issues.

The court also found the respondent engaged in bad faith by unilaterally withdrawing funds from a joint account and unnecessarily seizing a vehicle from the parties' daughter.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs, with $15,000 payable forthwith and $10,000 to be set off against any future equalization payment owed by the applicant.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, both retroactive and ongoing, for herself and the three children of the marriage.

The court determined the respondent husband's income for support purposes to be $400,000, higher than his claimed income.

The court ordered temporary child support for two children (Maggie and William) and temporary spousal support, with adjustments for when the children attend university away from home.

The wife's claim for retroactive support was adjourned to trial.

The court declined to impute income to the wife at this stage, recognizing her efforts towards self-sufficiency.

The applicant sought temporary child and spousal support, while the respondent cross-moved to impute income to the applicant and to calculate his income excluding certain non-cash and bonus components.

The parties shared parenting time equally.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant, finding she was not intentionally under-employed given her ongoing efforts to find work and her historical role as primary caregiver.

The court used the respondent's line 150 income of $217,007 to calculate temporary support, ordering him to pay $2,776 monthly in child support and $3,916 monthly in spousal support pending trial.

Following the breakdown of a 14‑year common law relationship with two children, the applicant sought determinations regarding retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, imputation of income to the respondent, allocation of section 7 expenses, accounting of joint financial dealings, and disposition of the jointly owned home.

The court found the respondent to be an unreliable witness and imputed income of $130,000 pursuant to s. 19 of the Child Support Guidelines.

Spousal support was ordered on both compensatory and non‑compensatory bases, reflecting the applicant’s long absence from the workforce to raise children and support the respondent’s career.

Retroactive support was recalculated to the date of separation, resulting in arrears after credits and adjustments.

Claims by the respondent for occupation rent, resulting trust over joint assets, and reimbursement for mortgage payments from inherited funds were dismissed, while the applicant received credits for certain expenses and property taken by the respondent.

Following a family law trial concerning variation of spousal support, the court determined costs under Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Both parties claimed substantial success, but the court found that success at trial was divided.

The court reviewed the parties’ offers to settle, litigation conduct, complexity of the issues, counsel rates, time spent, and disbursements.

Although neither party met the criteria for full recovery of costs under Rule 18(14), the respondent had made reasonable offers and incurred additional expense due to the applicant’s late filings and failure to comply with an order regarding expert evidence.

Considering these factors, the court ordered the applicant to pay nominal costs to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2003 consent judgment, seeking an increase in spousal support due to her inability to work from medical issues and the respondent's increased income.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the respondent's increased income and the applicant's lack of income.

However, the court imputed an income of $25,000 to the applicant, finding insufficient expert evidence to prove she was medically unable to work as a licensed paralegal.

The court also found insufficient evidence that the parties' 30-year-old son remained a dependent of the respondent.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court increased spousal support to $1,950 per month and ordered the respondent to continue providing health coverage, but dismissed the applicant's other claims.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her motion for an annulment of her marriage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly concluded the appellant failed to overcome the significant presumption of the validity of her marriage.