David Frenkel

The applicant brought a motion to amend a final order, alleging fraud by the respondent.

The court previously dismissed the motion, finding no fraud, but corrected three calculation errors conceded by the respondent.

In this costs endorsement, the respondent sought full indemnity costs due to the unproven fraud allegations.

The court rejected the applicant's request to defer costs to the trial judge, finding the applicant persisted with baseless fraud claims despite the respondent's early concessions.

The applicant was ordered to pay full indemnity costs of $16,615.59.

In this divorce proceeding, the mother sought sole custody of the two children, child support, and equalization of net family property, while the father sought sole or joint custody and spousal support.

The maternal grandparents also brought a claim for repayment of a mortgage loan and promissory note.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding she was better able to provide stability and prioritize the children's needs, while granting the father specified parenting time.

The court found the father was intentionally under-employed and imputed an annual income of $70,000 for the purpose of calculating child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The father's claim for compensatory spousal support was dismissed, but he was awarded a $50,000 lump sum for non-compensatory support based on need.

The court also ordered that the debt to the grandparents be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home, rejecting the father's argument that the loan had been forgiven.

The applicant brought a motion for a penalty following a previous finding that the respondent was in contempt for breaching various court orders, including failing to provide financial disclosure.

Although the respondent had since provided most of the required disclosure after retaining new counsel, he had also transferred over $53,000 from the sale of a property to his new wife in violation of a court order.

The court found that while the respondent had significantly complied with disclosure orders, his unauthorized transfer of funds warranted a penalty.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a $10,000 fine and a $5,000 penalty to the applicant, but declined to strike his pleadings given his recent efforts to comply and his proposal to pay arrears from the proceeds of a property sale.

Following the breakdown of a long-term unmarried cohabitation, the respondent sought ongoing and retroactive non‑compensatory spousal support alleging disability due to depression, ADD, and dyslexia.

The court assessed competing psychiatric evidence regarding the respondent’s employability.

Accepting the opinion of a court‑ordered psychiatric assessor over the treating psychiatrist, the court found the respondent suffered from chronic low‑grade depression but was capable of employment and self‑sufficiency if motivated.

The court held that dependency arose only in the final years of the relationship and was inconsistent with the parties’ prior financial independence.

Ongoing support was therefore time‑limited and ordered to terminate after a transition period, with limited retroactive support awarded.