Cheryl S. Williams

The respondent father brought a motion for a temporary stay of child and spousal support enforcement pending a motion to change.

The parties consented to a temporary suspension of child support during the months the child attended university outside Canada, and a stay of enforcement of support arrears.

The court dismissed the remainder of the motion, finding the father failed to establish a strong prima facie case for a temporary reduction in spousal support or a complete stay of child support during the summer months.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that granted her an adjournment of a family law trial on terms, including the payment of costs thrown away.

A prior case management order prohibited the parties from bringing any further motions without leave.

The Divisional Court held that the prior order remained binding despite the commencement of the trial.

The motion for leave to appeal was stayed pending the applicant obtaining leave to bring the motion or the resumption of the trial.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,700.

The applicant sought the release of her 50% interest in the net proceeds from the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent initially did not oppose this motion but attempted to bring an improper cross-motion for the release of his own share, which was rejected by the court filing office.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding it unopposed and properly before the court, while dismissing the respondent's attempt to proceed with his non-compliant cross-motion.

The court also awarded costs to the applicant due to the respondent's unreasonable and obstructionist behaviour.

The applicant wife brought a Form 14B motion to strike paragraphs of the respondent husband's Answer and to seal the motion materials.

The court found the motion was properly brought under Rule 14(10).

The court struck the impugned paragraphs of the Answer, finding them to be irrelevant, inflammatory, and a waste of time, seemingly included to embarrass the applicant.

The request for a sealing order was dismissed without prejudice as the applicant failed to provide legal support for the request.

The applicant wife sought extensive financial disclosure and questioning of the respondent husband's father, Marcel Aitoro (a non-party), regarding several companies and properties.

The wife alleged significant intertwining of business and personal financial affairs between the husband and Marcel, suggesting assets were being shielded and income diverted.

Marcel and the husband opposed, citing privacy and proportionality.

The court dismissed a preliminary objection by the husband regarding the wife's affidavit.

Applying Family Law Rules 19(11) and 20(5), and considering the importance of disclosure in family law, the court ordered Marcel to provide specific financial disclosure related to FSC (a company with intertwined business activities with the husband), redacted ledgers from Assissi (Marcel's holding company) concerning realty and husband's expenses, and redacted credit card statements used by the husband.

Questioning of Marcel was reserved pending compliance with the disclosure order.

The applicant sought costs of $457,000 following a 28-day family law trial involving custody, access, child support, spousal support, and property issues.

The respondent argued no costs should be ordered.

The court found the applicant achieved considerable success on the most important issues, including custody, parenting schedule, and support.

Furthermore, the court found the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by intentionally concealing that his restricted stock unit income was in U.S. dollars to improperly reduce his support obligations.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $400,000 in costs, with $200,000 attributed to support issues.

The parties separated after a 17-year cohabitation and marriage.

The mother sought sole custody of their 9-year-old child, while the father sought sole custody and equal parenting time.

The court found the parents were unable to communicate or make decisions cooperatively, largely due to the father's unrealistic expectations, unilateral changes to the parenting schedule, and refusal to accept professional advice regarding the child's need for counselling.

The mother was awarded sole custody, and the existing parenting schedule was largely maintained.

The court also ordered the father to pay child support, proportionate section 7 expenses, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support based on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The appellant appealed a final order regarding the sale of matrimonial properties, arguing it was granted without a case conference, despite the respondent's breach of a prior order, and without allowing her to complete her offer to purchase the matrimonial home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the application judge.

The urgency of outstanding offers justified dispensing with the case conference, the prior breach was addressed by dispensing with consent for transfer, and there was reason to doubt the appellant's offer was better than a pending third-party offer.