David A. Jarvis

Separated spouses brought competing family law motions after a long-term marriage.

The applicant wife sought a further advance on equalization from matrimonial home sale proceeds held in trust, while the respondent husband sought temporary spousal support and related relief.

Applying the Zagdanski framework, the court found sufficient certainty that at least a further minimum equalization amount would be payable, established need for funds, and fairness in ordering only a partial further advance given unresolved offsetting claims.

The court ordered a $60,000 advance on equalization, directed affidavit evidence on disputed personal property values, and awarded the husband temporary spousal support of $1,450 per month.

The court heard multiple interim motions in a family law dispute between unmarried parents concerning temporary child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, school selection, parenting time, and a request for a custody assessment.

The court fixed child support based on the father's estimated 2013 income and ordered interim spousal support within the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, while allocating section 7 expenses proportionately.

The court permitted the child to attend the school selected by the mother and ordered a modest increase in the father’s parenting time consistent with recommendations from the parties’ mediator.

The father's motion for a custody assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act was dismissed, as the parties had already agreed to obtain expert input from their mediator if necessary.

Costs were denied on the basis that success on the motions was divided.

The applicant brought a motion to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations, arguing a material change in circumstances following his involuntary retirement and the depletion of his assets.

The court found that the applicant's $4.5 million severance payment should be treated as income replacement for four years, delaying the material change to January 1, 2012.

The court imputed income to both parties based on their capital assets and reduced the applicant's spousal support obligation to $5,099 per month.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay COLA arrears on an after-tax basis, eliminated his life insurance obligation, but maintained his obligation to provide health benefits.

The respondents in a family law proceeding brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an application alleging fraudulent conveyances and trust claims against a new spouse, brought to secure enforcement of spousal support arrears.

The applicant alleged that assets transferred to the new spouse, including real property and corporate shares, were held in trust for the support payor and were transferred to defeat recovery of indexed spousal support arrears under a 1999 consent judgment.

The court found the new civil action premature because a motion to change the spousal support order and determine arrears was already pending.

The court held that enforcement-related claims against the new spouse should await the determination of whether the payor remained liable for the arrears or whether the support order would be varied.

The action was therefore stayed pending the outcome of the motion to change.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual conclusions, noting that the trial judge found the presumption of advancement had been rebutted.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $12,500.