Dani Frodis

Following a motion for interim child support where the respondent father was partially successful, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought $8,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the applicant mother sought $1,500 or that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but reduced the quantum due to divided success and the fact that his offer to settle was not more favourable than the result.

The respondent was awarded $3,500 in costs.

The respondent father brought a motion for interim child support, including retroactive support for a period when he had primary care of the children after restricting the applicant mother's parenting time due to her impaired driving arrest.

The mother opposed the retroactive claim, arguing it would reward the father's unilateral self-help, and questioned his ongoing entitlement due to his fluctuating self-employment income.

The court granted retroactive support effective from the date the father gave formal notice of his claim, finding that the children should not be penalized for the father's conduct.

Ongoing offset support and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses were also ordered based on the parties' 2021 stated incomes.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a final consent order on an interim basis to increase his parenting time with the parties' 12-year-old daughter to an equal week-about schedule.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the father failed to prove a material change in circumstances.

The court found that a review provision in the final order allowed for a review without proving a material change.

Relying on the first of two conflicting Voice of the Child reports, the court determined that an equal parenting schedule was in the child's best interests and granted the father's motion.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change his child and spousal support obligations following a 2018 trial decision.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the children entering and exiting post-secondary studies in the United States.

The court determined the appropriate section 7 expenses, calculated the respondent's income using a pre-tax corporate income approach, and continued to impute $50,000 in income to the applicant.

The court declined to adjust the spousal support payable to account for the fact that the applicant, having relocated to the United States, no longer paid tax on spousal support, finding the respondent was no worse off and the applicant remained entitled to high-end support.

The applicant sought a divorce and judgment in accordance with a marriage contract signed in 1991.

The respondent husband sought to set aside the marriage contract, claiming inadequate financial disclosure, lack of understanding, duress, and unconscionability, or alternatively, rectification of a unilateral mistake regarding his entitlement to the matrimonial home's increased value.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding he was aware of the applicant's assets, received independent legal advice, and faced no duress or exploitation.

The marriage contract was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay $85,000 in costs.

The applicant wife was successful on a motion regarding the respondent husband's failure to comply with court orders and make financial disclosure.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, noting the respondent's unreasonable behaviour and breach of four court orders.

The respondent was ordered to pay $19,298.79 in costs forthwith and prohibited from bringing further proceedings until paid.

The applicant and her sister, who co-owned the matrimonial home, sought an order to distribute the net proceeds of its sale.

The respondent husband, who had refused to consent to the sale, sought a Mareva injunction to freeze the proceeds, alleging his equalization claim would be defeated.

The court authorized the sale under s. 23(b) of the Family Law Act, dispensing with the respondent's consent.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for a Mareva injunction, finding no real risk of asset dissipation, and ordered the proceeds distributed with one-third held in trust as security for the respondent's potential interest.