Crystal Heidari

Following a trial where the applicant was awarded $3 million in lump-sum spousal support, the court determined the applicant's entitlement to prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded $129,698 in prejudgment interest, finding no reason to exercise its discretion to disallow it.

The court also awarded the applicant $670,000 in costs, noting she was entirely successful on the primary issue of spousal support and had made a qualifying offer to settle that entitled her to full recovery of costs from the date of the offer.

The applicant sought spousal support, unjust enrichment relief, and a mutual no-contact order arising from a disputed common-law relationship with an extremely wealthy respondent.

The court found the parties cohabited in a conjugal relationship from January 1, 2019 to August 23, 2023, applying the Molodowich factors holistically and relying heavily on contemporaneous records, caregiving evidence, and surreptitious recordings admitted for their high probative value.

The applicant failed to establish compensatory entitlement, but succeeded on a non-compensatory basis because of the enormous income disparity, her disability, and the steep post-separation drop from a highly luxurious standard of living.

The court imputed support income to the respondent using investible assets, fixed support at approximately $200,000 monthly for three years, and converted that award into a $3,000,000 lump sum.

The unjust enrichment claim and request for a restraining order were dismissed.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay an equalization payment of $353,752.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to exclude his 50% interest in a corporation from his net family property as a gift and inheritance from his late father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the husband failed to meet his evidentiary burden under section 4(3) of the Family Law Act to prove the shares were actually paid for by his father and thus capable of being gifted.

The appellant mother appealed an interim order granting the respondent father equal parenting time with their two-year-old child.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by ignoring the status quo, minimizing allegations of family violence, and failing to adequately consider the child's medical conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the child's best interests under the Divorce Act.

The court held that the motion judge properly considered the father's willingness to care for the child, the unlikelihood of family violence recurring post-separation, and the maximum contact principle.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $35,747.55 following cross-motions regarding parenting arrangements, mobility, and daycare.

The applicant argued entitlement to enhanced costs because he served three offers to settle that were as favourable or less favourable than the final order, pursuant to Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent argued no costs should be ordered as she litigated in good faith.

The court found the applicant was entitled to full indemnity costs for the issues of parenting time and mobility from the date of his March 1, 2022 offers.

Considering proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $25,000.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' two young children and the suspension of the applicant father's parenting time.

The father had unilaterally withheld the children, claiming the mother was abusing them, and locked out the professional supervisor.

The court found the father's abuse allegations to be unsubstantiated and his conduct raised serious concerns about his stability and the children's safety.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children, suspended the father's in-person parenting time, and included a police enforcement clause.