Christine Irene Ashbourne

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the partial release of funds from the sale of the parties' former matrimonial home.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for a lesser release.

The court, considering the parties' financial needs and the presumptive equalization payment, ordered the release of $150,000 to each party, with the father also ordered to pay $4,000 in costs to the mother.

The decision emphasized the need for realistic solutions and good faith communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother brought urgent motions for the partial release of funds held in trust from the sale of the parties’ former matrimonial home.

The court acknowledged the urgency of the request, given the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, and directed the respondent father to file a response to the motions by 3:00 p.m. on the same day.

The court emphasized the need for parties to communicate in good faith and propose realistic solutions during these times, citing principles from *Ribeiro v. Wright*.

A written decision was to be issued after the respondent's submissions.

The appellant appealed from a contempt order under which he was ordered jailed.

On the eve of the expedited appeal hearing, the appellant accepted an offer to settle under which he agreed to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on a full indemnity scale.

The court found the costs claimed to be wholly disproportionate and far beyond the range of anything that could be considered reasonable, even on a full indemnity basis.

The court fixed costs of the appeal at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes on a full indemnity basis.

Additionally, the appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the order underlying the contempt finding and several other orders, but was largely unsuccessful.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

No order was made as to costs in relation to the respondent's motion to deny audience to the appellant.

The applicant mother sought full recovery costs of $62,939.39 after being largely successful in custody and parenting motions.

The respondent father sought costs payable in cause or limited to $10,500.

The court found the father acted in bad faith due to his conduct, including involving the child in litigation, non-compliance with orders, and making a baseless insinuation of judicial bias.

Despite the mother not making an offer to settle and her counsel's time appearing excessive, the court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, reflecting disapproval of the father's conduct and a discount for the mother's omissions.

The request to enforce the award as a support order was declined.

Following separation and a review clause in a separation agreement, the parties disputed the continuation and quantum of spousal support, child support obligations under a shared parenting arrangement, life insurance security for support, and whether post-separation income should be shared.

The court assessed the parties’ respective incomes, imputing income to the respondent due to underemployment.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and the objectives of s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, the court determined that the respondent remained in need of support but that a time-limited, step‑down order was appropriate.

Child support was recalculated using the set‑off method under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court also ordered life insurance to secure support obligations and declined to require the respondent to share her post‑separation income.