E. Mourao

In a bifurcated family law trial, the court determined issues of spousal support entitlement, income for support purposes, and a claim for a resulting trust over a property.

The court found the wife had an ongoing entitlement to spousal support.

The husband's income was imputed to include $30,000 annually in housing and other benefits provided by his wealthy father.

Finally, the court held that a property purchased by the father and placed in the names of the husband and wife was a gratuitous transfer.

The wife failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, and the property was declared to be held in trust for the father.

The parties brought competing interim family law motions following separation.

One spouse sought partition and sale of the matrimonial home despite the property being registered solely in the other spouse’s name, while the responding spouse sought to impute higher income to the payor for child and spousal support.

The court held that the applicant had not established any ownership interest sufficient to invoke the Partition Act or otherwise justify ordering an immediate sale of the home, particularly where a constructive trust claim had not yet been proven.

The court declined most of the alleged income adjustments but imputed income reflecting employment salary, consulting fees paid through a corporation, and a portion of employment benefits.

Interim child support, spousal support, and retroactive support were ordered based on the imputed income.

The parties brought competing interim family law motions following separation.

One spouse sought partition and sale of the matrimonial home despite the property being registered solely in the other spouse’s name, while the responding spouse sought to impute higher income to the payor for child and spousal support.

The court held that the applicant had not established any ownership interest sufficient to invoke the Partition Act or otherwise justify ordering an immediate sale of the home, particularly where a constructive trust claim had not yet been proven.

The court declined most of the alleged income adjustments but imputed income reflecting employment salary, consulting fees paid through a corporation, and a portion of employment benefits.

Interim child support, spousal support, and retroactive support were ordered based on the imputed income.

The moving party mother brought a motion to change a previous order to seek child support and contributions to post-secondary education expenses for the parties' two adult children.

The responding party father argued that his disability pension income should not be grossed up, that child support should not be payable while one child lived away from home, and that the children should bear a larger portion of their education costs.

The court found that the parties' disability incomes were fully taxable and should not be grossed up.

The court ordered the father to pay child support for both children, finding that the child living away for school was deemed to reside with the parents under a previous order, and the other child was upgrading credits in preparation for post-secondary education.

The court further ordered that the post-secondary education expenses be shared equally in thirds between the mother, the father, and the respective child.