Eli Cohen

The respondent brought a Rule 14B motion seeking reconsideration of a spousal support order, specifically challenging the finding that he would be eligible for a full pension in 2025, alleging a mistake.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought costs.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no mistake in the original order that would warrant reconsideration under Rule 25(19), stating any perceived error would require an appeal.

The court then proceeded to determine the costs for both the dismissed 14B motion and the underlying application (trial), assessing success based on the parties' positions and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant partial indemnity costs for both.

This seven-day trial addressed spousal support, including entitlement, quantum, retroactivity, lump sum, and duration, following a 24-year marriage.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory support due to career sacrifices and her primary caregiver role.

It determined the income for both parties, awarded retroactive support from June 1, 2020, and ongoing monthly support of $1,900.

However, the request for a lump sum future support award was denied due to the unpredictable future means and needs of the parties.

Indefinite support was deemed appropriate given the long duration of the marriage.

The applicant sought summary judgment for custody and access.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, finding both parents contributed to a high-conflict environment detrimental to the children.

The decision emphasized the need for professional assessments for the son, James, and therapy for both parents to address anger, hostility, and parenting skills.

Specific orders were made regarding communication, disclosure, and a structured access schedule, with a focus on developing individual relationships with the father, free from conflict.

The parties, former common-law partners, sought interpretation and enforcement of a mediated settlement agreement concerning the buyout of their shared veterinary and fitness businesses.

The applicant sought interest, damages, and costs due to delayed financing, while the respondent sought reductions for alleged undisclosed debts (HST, snow clearing, advertising, bad debt) and accounting/legal fees.

The court dismissed most claims from both parties, finding that the respondent was responsible for business accounts payable and that the delay in financing was attributable to both parties' actions regarding financial records.

The applicant was granted interest as per the original consent order, but no additional damages or costs.

The respondent's claims for deductions and professional costs were dismissed.