C. Andrew Haber

This trial judgment addresses spousal and child support claims following a long-term marriage.

The court determined the reasonableness of the respondent husband's early retirement, declining to impute his pre-retirement income due to mental health and caregiving responsibilities for a disabled child.

The court imputed a modest part-time income to the husband and a modest investment income to the applicant wife from her equalization payment.

It rejected the applicant's claim for retroactive spousal support and the concept of "double-recovery" from the husband's pension, finding the husband to be in greater financial hardship.

Prospective spousal support was awarded at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines based on the imputed incomes.

Child support for the adult child was terminated.

The appellant, a teacher at a private school, appealed the dismissal of her constructive dismissal claim by way of summary judgment.

She alleged that the respondent school altered the terms of her employment by failing to protect her from a confrontation with a student's parents over a mark, undermining her authority by having another teacher read and mark assignments, and assigning passing grades to students who had not completed all assignments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissal, finding no evidence that the school altered the terms of employment or breached any policy, and that the school's response to the appellant's complaints was measured and reasonable.

The applicant father sought an order restraining the respondent mother from removing their six-year-old child from Ontario.

The respondent mother sought permission to temporarily relocate the child from Oakville to Astana, Kazakhstan from September 2017 to March 2018 to reside with her partner, a professional hockey player.

The court granted the mother's request, permitting the temporary relocation on the same terms and conditions as a previously agreed order permitting relocation to China.

The court found that the separation agreement explicitly permitted the mother to relocate with the child, that the father had recently consented to similar terms, and that the mother's proposed arrangements adequately addressed concerns regarding education, health care, and security.

This endorsement addresses costs for a motion where the Wife sought interim spousal support and exclusive possession, and the Husband brought a cross-motion.

While the Wife achieved modest success on the main motion, the court found both parties' litigation conduct to be unreasonable, characterized by a refusal to make concessions and an overly combative approach.

Despite both parties seeking substantial indemnity costs, the court awarded no costs, emphasizing the need to correct their behaviour and noting the disproportionate costs incurred relative to the modest success and lack of advancement in the overall application.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an order requiring the applicant father to contribute to nanny expenses retroactive to August 2011, to pay for a financial expert to evaluate his income, and to pay child support arrears.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion for questioning to take place in Oakville with each party bearing their own costs.

The court found that the nanny expense was necessary and reasonable given the mother's unpredictable nursing schedule involving evening and overnight shifts.

The court ordered the father to contribute $1,536.00 per month toward nanny expenses commencing August 1, 2012, with arrears of $16,896.00 payable immediately.

The court also ordered the father to advance $10,000.00 for the mother to retain a financial expert.

Questioning was ordered to take place in Oakville with each party bearing their own costs.