Elissa Helene Gamus

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The applicant father, a self-employed real estate agent, failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court imputed the father's income at $228,432 based on his 2023 tax return and current earnings trajectory.

The mother's income was set at $65,000.

The court ordered the father to pay $3,092 per month in child support and $2,588 per month in spousal support, along with 67% of section 7 expenses.

The father was also ordered to maintain a $500,000 life insurance policy as security for his support obligations.

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.

The mother and father brought cross-motions for temporary parenting orders regarding their two young children.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, while the father sought equal parenting time.

The court found that the parties' poor communication, high conflict, and mutual allegations of family violence made joint decision-making inappropriate.

The court granted the mother temporary decision-making responsibility for health and tutoring, and ordered a parenting schedule where the children reside primarily with the mother, with the father having parenting time three out of four weekends and one weekday overnight per month.

The applicant father brought a motion for equal decision-making and a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule at his separate residence.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for sole decision-making and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court found that the status quo was an equal parenting arrangement under a previous consent order, and that it was in the children's best interests to maintain equal parenting time but in separate residences to reduce conflict.

The father's motion for equal decision-making and a graduated shared parenting schedule was granted.

The mother's cross-motion for exclusive possession was dismissed as unnecessary given the father's undertaking not to return to the home.

The moving party (father) sought costs of $669,000 following a successful motion to change child and spousal support.

The responding party (mother) had unsuccessfully sought to reopen numerous issues from a prior trial, alleging the moving party had significant unreported cash income.

The court found the responding party acted unreasonably, though not in bad faith, and that the moving party's offer to settle met the requirements of Rule 18(14).

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the moving party $500,000 in costs, declining to order full recovery or to make the costs enforceable as support.

The parties, both physicians, engaged in highly conflicted litigation over child and spousal support following their divorce.

The father brought a motion to change child support as the children commenced university, and the mother sought to increase spousal support and impute significant unreported cash income to the father.

The court rejected the mother's expert evidence on imputing income due to bias and errors, preferring the father's expert.

The court established a framework for child support while the children attend university, ordered the father to pay minor arrears for table and s. 7 expenses, and dismissed the mother's claim for increased spousal support, finding no material change in circumstances.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent father's motion to change a final order for child and spousal support.

The father argued that his assignment in bankruptcy and subsequent status as an employee rather than a business owner constituted a material change in circumstances justifying a reduction in support.

The court granted the mother's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court held that the father's voluntary assignment in bankruptcy did not affect his income or capacity to earn money, and therefore did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The father's motion to change was dismissed.

The applicant, having been successful on a motion for summary judgment, sought costs of $42,000 and alleged bad faith by the respondent.

The court declined to find bad faith but noted the respondent's unreasonable conduct, including failing to comply with disclosure orders, which unnecessarily expanded the record.

The court rejected the respondent's claim of impecuniosity, finding her lifestyle inconsistent with her stated income.

Costs were awarded to the applicant fixed at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, interim disbursements, and a non-depletion order following the breakdown of a 51-year traditional marriage.

The respondent husband, who controlled a lucrative family business, had ceased paying support and changed his compensation structure from salary to share redemption, significantly depleting his capital.

The husband brought a cross-motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and cottage.

The court found the husband was deliberately attempting to evade his support and equalization obligations.

The court ordered the husband to pay $20,000 per month in interim spousal support, a retroactive lump sum of $187,500, and $200,000 in interim disbursements.

The court also issued a non-depletion order and adjourned the husband's motion for the sale of the properties to the trial judge.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The trial addressed child support, spousal support, and equalization, including the valuation of the respondent's businesses and the matrimonial home.

The court imputed income to both parties, setting the applicant's income at $37,500 and the respondent's at $162,800 for 2013, factoring in corporate pre-tax income and personal expenses paid by his companies.

The court valued the respondent's businesses on a going concern basis rather than a liquidation basis.

The court also found that the respondent held a 50% beneficial interest in the matrimonial home, which was registered solely in the applicant's name, as the presumption of resulting trust was not rebutted.

The applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property due to a tax liability was dismissed.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $699,309.14, plus ongoing child and spousal support.

At a Trial Management Conference for a family law dispute involving custody and mobility issues, the court reviewed the parties' extensive witness lists which estimated 24 to 25 days of trial time.

The court had previously set a tentative 15-day trial date.

To ensure the trial proceeds efficiently and maximizes judicial resources, the court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to impose strict time limits, allocating 37.5 hours per party, and ordered counsel to reduce oral evidence.

The trial date remained tentative pending a supplementary TMC.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding under case management, the court conducted telephone case conferences to address disputes relating to parenting scheduling, confidentiality agreements affecting disclosure, and the impending power of sale of the former matrimonial home.

The parties had previously agreed not to bring parenting motions pending completion of a s. 30 assessment, but urgent issues arose concerning mortgage arrears and potential power of sale proceedings.

The court declined to authorize several proposed motions but granted the respondent leave to bring a limited motion concerning the power of sale timeline due to the urgency of the mortgage demand.

The judge maintained strict case management control, requiring leave and a timetable before any motions could be brought and scheduling a further case conference to determine next procedural steps.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to vary an interim access order requiring a nanny to accompany the child during access visits.

The nanny had resigned, leading to a stalemate in which the applicant mother refused unsupervised access while the father refused supervision, resulting in the child not seeing the father for several weeks.

The court interpreted the earlier order and held that the term “accompany” did not mean supervision.

In the child’s best interests, the court ordered temporary unsupervised access for the father, with supervised transitions between the parents.

The court also permitted the mother to travel temporarily with the child to California for a limited visit with her family.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking summary judgment to enforce an alleged oral settlement reached during a settlement meeting.

The applicant argued that no binding settlement had been reached because essential terms remained unresolved and the parties intended any agreement to be finalized only through a comprehensive written separation agreement.

The court reviewed the governing principles for determining whether a binding settlement exists, including the requirement of consensus on all essential terms and objective evidence of a meeting of the minds.

Examining the parties’ post‑meeting correspondence and the proposed terms, the court found ongoing negotiations, material variations between proposals, and clear indications that a final written separation agreement was required.

As a result, the court concluded that no enforceable settlement had been reached.

Following a family law summary judgment motion regarding custody and access, the court addressed costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant had obtained summary judgment granting sole custody but the access issue was directed to trial.

The applicant sought approximately $39,773 in costs using a “hybrid full recovery” approach.

The court held that although the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party on custody, the amount claimed was excessive for a one‑day motion decided on affidavit evidence.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Following a lengthy marriage between two medical professionals, the parties proceeded to trial to resolve financial issues including equalization of net family property, spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court determined that equalization under the Family Law Act was appropriate and rejected the applicant’s claim for an unequal division under s. 5(6), finding that equalization would not be unconscionable.

The court calculated an equalization payment and addressed numerous disputed property valuation issues, including notional disposition costs and treatment of premarital assets.

The court also found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs-based grounds due to reduced earning capacity after assuming greater childcare responsibilities during the marriage.

Orders were made for ongoing spousal support, retroactive support adjustments, set‑off child support, allocation of section 7 expenses, life insurance to secure support obligations, and timelines for vacating the matrimonial home.