Ella L.J. Bernhard

The defendant brought a motion for a nunc pro tunc order to retroactively authorize communication with his counsel during cross-examination, which was in contravention of a direct court order.

The plaintiffs opposed, denying they had consented to such communication.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that no consent was proven and, more importantly, that leave of the court was required regardless of any alleged consent, especially given the explicit court order.

The court determined that the breach would be considered when assessing the weight of the defendant's evidence, particularly concerning the alleged unlawful appropriation of gold.

This endorsement addresses parenting issues arising from a motion and cross-motion between separated parents.

The Respondent sought temporary parenting orders for their two children, R. and B., including primary residence arrangements and specific visiting schedules.

The Applicant opposed these orders.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding that, despite the urgency, it was not possible to make specific orders in the children's best interests given the high level of parental conflict, contradictory evidence, and the pending s. 30 assessment.

The court noted the children's giftedness and anxiety, and the lack of a safe, structured environment for inter-sibling visits.

The parties were urged to pursue mediation and communicate to resolve parenting and financial issues.

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

The court determined the motion was urgent given the Applicant's need for accommodation.

The primary issue was the Respondent's income for support calculations.

The court rejected the Respondent's lower estimate for 2020 due to insufficient explanation and belated disclosure, instead relying on his 2018 Line 150 income of $2,256,040.

Based on this income, the court ordered the Respondent to pay $43,437 per month in temporary spousal support and $16,663 per month in temporary child support for one child, adopting the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range due to potential pandemic financial impacts.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for temporary parenting and child/spousal support.

The respondent initially opposed the urgency but later agreed to an expedited hearing for both the applicant's motion and an anticipated cross-motion.

The court found both parenting and support issues to be urgent, particularly given the children's living arrangements and the applicant's need for income to secure permanent accommodation.

The court scheduled the motions, set deadlines for material filing, and ordered the initialization of the parties' names in the style of cause.

The court also provided guidance on the s. 30 assessment and encouraged mediation.