Elham Moaveni

The court reconsidered an equalization payment of $66,200 owed by the wife to the husband, following an initial judgment and addendum.

The reconsideration focused on whether equalizing net family properties would be unconscionable under sections 5(6)(e) and (h) of the Family Law Act, particularly given the short marriage duration (three years), the wife's non-financial contributions, and the market-driven appreciation of her Sri Lankan properties.

The court found that ordering the original payment would be unconscionable under s. 5(6)(e) due to the disproportionately large amount relative to the cohabitation period and the nature of the asset appreciation.

However, the court was not persuaded that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic met the high evidentiary onus for unconscionability under s. 5(6)(h).

Consequently, the equalization payment was reduced from $66,200 to $9,500, reflecting a prorated amount based on the cohabitation period and the wife's contributions.

This family law trial addressed the equalization of net family properties, child support, and the potential unconscionability of an equalization payment.

The court determined the valuation date to be December 8, 2015, and calculated that the wife presumptively owed the husband an equalization payment of $66,080.

The husband was ordered to pay child support and arrears.

The final decision on the equalization payment was deferred for further submissions on unconscionability, particularly considering the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the wife's business.

A temporary motion for child support in which the mother sought ongoing child support, retroactive support, and contribution to section 7 expenses from the biological father.

The father challenged his status as a legal parent under the amended Children's Law Reform Act, arguing he was merely a sperm donor.

The court found the father was a legal parent with a child support obligation based on consensual unprotected sexual intercourse.

The court imputed income of $230,000 based on the father's failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and his pattern of concealing assets and income.

The court ordered temporary child support of $1,875 per month effective February 1, 2018, and granted leave to amend the application to include section 7 expenses.

The applicant mother and respondent father engaged in a highly conflictual 27-day trial regarding custody, access, child support, and the mother's request to relocate their four children to England to live with her new husband.

The court found the father to be abusive, emotionally unstable, and unable to shield the children from his hostility towards the mother and her new husband.

The mother was awarded sole custody and permitted to move the children to England, subject to conditions including immigration approval and child protection clearance.

The father's access was ordered to be supervised initially, with a pathway to unsupervised access and extended holiday visits if the move occurs.

The father was ordered to pay child support, with a reduction upon relocation due to the undue hardship of international access costs.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion for contempt against a lawyer who was not a party to the litigation but who held proceeds from the sale of the respondent’s business in trust.

A prior ex parte freezing order required the proceeds of sale to remain in trust pending further court order, except for payment to a secured creditor and legal fees.

Despite receiving the order and being warned not to breach it, the lawyer disbursed substantial funds to trade creditors, family members of the respondent, and others without seeking court approval.

The court held that the order was clear and unequivocal and that negotiations between counsel did not alter its binding effect.

Applying the contempt test, the court found that the lawyer knowingly and deliberately breached the order beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, financial disclosure, and reimbursement of moving and storage expenses following separation.

The court found the respondent’s financial disclosure unreliable and inconsistent with his lifestyle and therefore imputed income based on his expenses.

Departing from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines custodial payor range, the court awarded higher interim support to reflect the circumstances surrounding the separation and the applicant’s financial vulnerability.

The court also ordered extensive financial disclosure and reimbursement of storage fees.

Interim spousal support was fixed at $4,260 per month pending trial.