Deborah MacKenzie

In this high-conflict family law trial, the court determined equalization, child support, and spousal support following a 12-year marriage.

The respondent husband had a history of deceit and hiding assets, complicating the determination of his income and net family property.

The court ordered an equalization payment of over $1 million to the applicant wife, imputed income to both parties, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

Due to the respondent's conduct, the court ordered a lump sum for ongoing spousal support and secured the equalization payment against his corporate assets.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a marriage contract and requested interim spousal support of $50,000 per month, alleging duress, undue influence, unconscionability, and inadequate financial disclosure.

The respondent husband opposed the motion, arguing the contract was valid and that the applicant's refusal to produce her former counsel's file warranted an adverse inference.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the contract's validity under the two-stage Miglin test.

The court upheld the contractual spousal support of $12,000 per month and ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondent.

The appellant, a father, appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his mortgage action against his son and daughter-in-law.

The trial judge had found the mortgage unenforceable on three grounds: duress, sham, and failure to prove advances.

The Court of Appeal reversed on the first two grounds, finding no duress and that the mortgage was not a sham.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the father failed to prove that funds advanced through a company were made under the mortgage, as opposed to being income to the son.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a twelve‑day family law trial concerning parenting arrangements, the successful party sought costs exceeding $140,000 after defeating the other party’s motion to change a prior consent order.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the successful party achieved total success and acted reasonably throughout the proceedings.

Although self‑represented at trial, the successful party had used limited legal assistance and was herself a lawyer, making recovery of reasonable fees appropriate.

The court reduced certain claimed amounts but rejected arguments that self‑representation barred recovery of legal fees.

Substantial costs were awarded against the unsuccessful party.

The appellant appealed an arbitration award determining retroactive and prospective child support and costs following a dispute arising from a separation agreement.

The arbitrator had found that the payor parent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and imputed substantial income based on corporate earnings, discretionary expenses, and adverse inferences under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The arbitrator ordered retroactive child support back to 2009 and prospective support based on table amounts, together with significant arbitration costs.

The court held that the arbitrator committed no reviewable error in interpreting the separation agreement, imputing income, attributing corporate pre‑tax income, or awarding retroactive support, and deferred to the arbitrator’s factual and credibility findings.

However, the court found the arbitrator’s reasoning on costs insufficient and reduced the costs award.

The father brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking equal time-sharing, parallel parenting, and decision-making authority over the children's education and health.

He alleged the mother failed to consult with him and that his employment changes constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances.

The court noted the high level of conflict between the parents and held that joint custody or parallel parenting would not be in the children's best interests.

The mother's proposal to slightly increase the father's parenting time was incorporated into the final order.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

The husband's father brought an action to enforce an $800,000 mortgage registered against the matrimonial home, which was consolidated with the family law proceedings.

The court found the mortgage was a sham designed to protect the husband's equity and dismissed the father's claim against the wife.

In the family law action, the court determined the date of separation, valued the husband's corporate interests, and found the husband had manipulated his business affairs to defeat the wife's claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $300,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and corporate benefits, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $489,354, retroactive support of $196,462, and ongoing spousal support of $7,000 per month (or a lump sum of $585,000).

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim custody, child support, spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and financial disclosure.

The respondent sought expanded parenting time with the child of the marriage.

The court held that conflicting evidence prevented a finding on an interim basis that the respondent stood in loco parentis to the applicant’s two older children from a prior relationship.

The court imputed income of $100,000 to the respondent due to inadequate financial disclosure and lifestyle evidence, and ordered interim child and spousal support retroactive to the date of separation.

Interim parenting arrangements maximizing the child’s contact with both parents were established, and orders for disclosure, asset preservation, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home were granted.

The applicant brought a motion to compel compliance with outstanding orders, for contempt, and to strike the respondent's Answer and Claim following chronic non-compliance with financial disclosure obligations.

The court found that the respondent had failed to purge his previous contempt and imposed a $300,000 penalty.

Due to the respondent's ongoing failure to comply with court orders and the Family Law Rules, the court struck his Answer and Claim, limiting his future participation in the proceedings, and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

In a protracted family law proceeding involving disputes over alleged oral and written agreements made before and during the marriage, the applicant brought a motion seeking to revisit a prior ruling on the scope of questioning and pre‑trial disclosure.

The respondent alleged that agreements relating to renovation funding and a promissory note were invalid due to breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, and misrepresentation arising from the applicant’s failure to disclose an extramarital relationship.

The court held that limited additional questioning concerning the applicant’s extramarital relationships was appropriate and ordered the applicant to re‑attend for up to one hour to answer previously refused questions.

The court also confirmed the respondent’s entitlement to detailed accounting supporting the applicant’s financial claim and permitted inquiries relating to the value of an alleged 3% interest in a company involving the added party.

In a family law proceeding scheduled for imminent trial, the responding party sought leave to bring a late motion for production and forensic examination of a corporation’s original minute book and corporate tax returns to challenge the moving party’s asserted ownership interests.

The court found the disclosure requests related to issues long known to the parties and held the motion could and should have been brought months earlier.

Given the proximity of trial and the absence of any identified expert or feasible expert process under the Rules, the court declined to grant the requested relief.

Instead, the court ordered limited pre-trial inspection of the corporate minute book and original accounting records to streamline the upcoming trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party to the motion.

The applicant wife moved for an order for $300,000 in interim costs, or alternatively, for the sale or encumbrance of the matrimonial home to fund ongoing family law litigation.

The court found that while res judicata did not bar the motion, the wife failed to meet her evidentiary burden.

She did not demonstrate that her claims regarding the marriage contract and family trust were meritorious, that the husband had the ability to pay the requested amount, or that the proposed expert fees and legal costs were necessary and reasonable.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the husband.

In a family proceeding joined with a related civil action, the responding spouse brought a motion seeking orders compelling the applicant spouse to answer refusals and satisfy undertakings arising from examinations for discovery.

The disputed questions concerned financial disclosure relating to a loan agreement for home renovations and the alleged ownership of shares in a start‑up pharmaceutical company through the applicant or a related corporation.

The court held that further financial disclosure concerning the applicant’s historical assets was not warranted beyond potentially accessible documents relied upon by the accountant, subject to cost reimbursement.

However, disclosure relating to corporate shareholdings and documents connected to the alleged share interest claim was found relevant and ordered to be produced.

Certain undertakings and refusals relating to the corporate issue were ordered satisfied within 30 days.