Deborah Perkins-Leitman

The mother brought a motion for interim spousal and child support, including s. 7 expenses and retroactive support.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to impute income to the mother and suspend support payments.

The court declined to impute income to the mother, setting her income at $0 for support purposes.

The father's income was set at $949,000 for support purposes, rejecting his lower proposed income.

The court ordered the father to pay child support for one child (the daughter) and mid-range spousal support, rejecting the father's proposal to suspend payments until the matrimonial home was sold.

Retroactive support was declined, to be determined at trial.

The orders were made on a temporary, without prejudice basis due to ongoing financial disclosure.

The applicant father sought primary care and sole decision-making for his 11-year-old daughter following the mother's death from brain cancer.

The maternal grandparents, with whom the child had primarily resided for most of her life, opposed this, seeking to maintain the status quo.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act, rejected the father's claim of a "right of joint custodial survivorship" and found that the child's need for stability and continuity favored remaining in the grandparents' primary care.

The court granted interim primary care and final decision-making to the grandparents, while establishing a parenting schedule for the father and ordering mediation.

This endorsement addresses two motions brought under Family Law Rule 25(19) to correct errors in a prior judgment.

The Applicant's motion sought to correct a misapprehension of evidence regarding a shared debt's quantum, which the court granted, adjusting the amount from $325,000 to $650,000.

The Respondent Imran Khan's motion sought to reduce a retroactive spousal support lump sum award by considering income tax consequences.

The court dismissed this motion, ruling that FLR 25(19)(b) and (c) do not provide jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions or errors of law, only typographical or mathematical errors, or matters not previously decided.

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of property ownership, equalization, and support following a 16-year marriage.

The court found that the shares of a lucrative cellular phone business were held in a bare trust equally for the applicant and respondent, but ascribed zero value to the business for equalization due to unreliable financial records.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $291,820.05 to the applicant, dismissed both parties' claims for unequal division and damages, and ordered the respondent to pay $700,000 in retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed historical income of $2,000,000.

This appeal concerns a motion to change a custody and access order.

The trial judge rejected a proposed settlement negotiated by the parties during trial without providing reasons, then proceeded to hear the trial and rendered a decision maintaining the children's primary residence with the respondent in the Niagara region rather than allowing them to move to Ottawa with the appellant.

The majority upheld the trial judge's decision on the merits, finding that although the trial judge erred in failing to provide reasons for rejecting the settlement, the findings made after trial confirm the custody order was in the children's best interests.

The majority reduced the costs award from $40,000 to $30,000.

Justice Nordheimer dissented, arguing that the trial judge's knowledge of the settlement terms compromised his impartiality and that the settlement should have been approved.

The applicant moved to enforce a term of a separation agreement allowing her to discharge a mortgage on her home at two-thirds of its face value.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to set aside the agreement entirely, alleging the applicant had fundamentally breached multiple terms regarding access, child support enforcement, and mediation.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that significant factual disputes existed regarding the alleged breaches, making it inappropriate to enforce the settlement on a summary motion.

The respondent was ordered to continue paying child support while pursuing his application to set aside the agreement.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order requiring the family to attend a reunification program to address the children's resistance to spending time with her.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing the program constituted 'treatment' requiring the children's consent under the Health Care Consent Act, and denying any alienation.

The court found the program did not constitute treatment and exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to order attendance, finding the father had inappropriately involved the children in the litigation and that the program was in their best interests.