Elissa Helene Gamus

The respondent husband brought a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home to obtain funds for legal expenses and to continue making support payments.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, arguing that she had established a prima facie case for a vesting order to satisfy her claims for equalization and spousal support, and that the sale would prejudice her rights.

The court found that the wife had established a prima facie case for substantial equalization and retroactive spousal support payments exceeding the husband's equity in the home, and that the wife would suffer prejudice if the home were sold before trial.

The motion was dismissed.

This decision concerns the return of an urgent motion made without notice by Dana-Paula Caringi, seeking preservation and disclosure orders regarding property and bank accounts associated with Mauro Caringi and a third party, Ms. Brown, in the context of family law proceedings.

The court reviews the orders previously granted without notice, analyzes the legal basis for preservation and Norwich orders, and ultimately declines to grant the requested relief, finding the necessary legal and evidentiary thresholds unmet.

The court also addresses costs and removes the matter from the trial list.

This is an appeal from a family proceeding where the appellant sought to overturn the motion judge's decision to terminate spousal and child support obligations for the respondent due to his retirement, and to increase her spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the respondent's retirement was reasonable, that spousal support should be terminated due to material change in circumstances and the appellant's improvident financial decisions, and that child support for the youngest child should end by August 2023.

The court also refused leave to appeal the costs award.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a Motion to Change brought by the respondent, John Craig Fielding, to terminate his child and spousal support obligations following his retirement.

The applicant, Victoria Fielding, opposed the motion and sought to increase spousal support and continue child support.

The court found the respondent to be the significantly more successful party on the Motion to Change, particularly regarding the termination of spousal support due to his reasonable retirement.

While the applicant had some success on child support issues, her overall conduct was deemed unreasonable, including attempts to re-litigate issues under the guise of clarification.

Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent 80% of his overall costs, fixed at $295,000, enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This decision addresses a motion to change brought by the respondent, Craig, to terminate child and spousal support obligations following his retirement, and a cross-motion by the applicant, Victoria, to increase spousal support and continue child support.

The court found Craig's retirement at age 64 to be reasonable and a material change in circumstances, despite Victoria's arguments that it was premature.

The court also acknowledged the termination of Victoria's long-term disability benefits as a material change.

Ultimately, spousal support for Victoria was terminated effective December 31, 2021, due to her significant net worth and perceived improvident financial management, emphasizing the objective of self-sufficiency.

Child support for Natalie was continued until August 31, 2023, for her graduate studies, but not beyond, and specific s. 7 expenses were capped and apportioned based on previous orders.

This costs endorsement followed a prior family law ruling concerning support issues.

Although the underlying motion resulted in mixed success, the court found the respondent was largely successful on the principal issue relating to income determination for support purposes.

The court held that the applicant should reasonably have accepted the respondent’s offer to settle, which would have provided greater overall financial benefit and avoided further litigation costs.

Considering the Family Law Rules and the parties’ financial circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to award costs approaching substantial indemnity but reduced the amount because the respondent was not wholly successful.

Costs of $21,893.84, including partial reimbursement of an expert report, were ordered payable within 30 days.

On competing family law motions, the parties sought orders concerning income imputation, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and financial restraints.

The court considered evidence regarding the respondent’s business income, rental income, and debt levels, including an expert financial analysis report, and rejected the applicant’s argument that significant undisclosed cash income should be attributed.

The court accepted the expert analysis and imputed annual income to the respondent of $26,000 for child support purposes, while declining to impute income to the applicant due to her primary caregiving responsibilities for a child with significant developmental needs, though noting she retained some earning capacity.

Child support was fixed at the Guideline table amount based on the respondent’s income, modest spousal support was ordered, and the respondent was required to temporarily continue vehicle-related payments.

Additional orders addressed section 7 expense sharing, release of trust funds to the respondent, and a non‑dissipation order restraining the applicant from further encumbering equity in her property pending resolution of equalization.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and substantial retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $700,000 to the respondent father.

The court declined to determine custody on the limited interim record but confirmed that the child would primarily reside with the mother in the matrimonial home.

The request for exclusive possession was denied because the evidence did not establish that the father’s continued presence posed a threat to the child’s best interests under s. 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court assessed the father’s interim income at $325,000 and ordered table child support and high-range spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive to November 1, 2011.

Requests for section 7 expenses and further disclosure were deferred.