Evan Chang

The applicant mother sought interim child and spousal support, while the respondent father sought interim primary residence and sole decision-making for their four children.

The mother has a severe, ongoing drug addiction that resulted in multiple overdoses and CAS involvement.

The court granted the father primary residence and sole decision-making, finding it in the children's best interests despite the older children's preferences.

The mother's claim for child support was dismissed.

The court imputed the father's income at $103,000 and ordered him to pay interim spousal support of $550 per month while the mother remained in a family-owned property, increasing to $1,000 per month once she vacated.

The applicant sought child and spousal support following a 22-month cohabitation and marriage.

The central issue was whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the applicant's two children from a previous relationship, one of whom has severe autism.

Applying the Chartier factors, the court found the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as his own.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child and spousal support for a fixed three-year term, reflecting the short duration of the relationship and the parties' reasonable expectations.

The applicant sought spousal support, property division, and a restraining order following the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent.

The respondent claimed the marriage was a sham entered into solely for immigration purposes and sought a divorce and unequal division of net family property.

The court found the marriage was not a sham, determined the date of separation to be March 23, 2013, and resolved various property disputes including the valuation of a business, foreign property, and a disputed bare trust over a home.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment and lump sum spousal support, and issued a non-communication order.

The court determined costs arising from four prior family law motions relating to partial distribution of matrimonial home sale proceeds and disclosure obligations following the death of a spouse.

Although success on the motions was divided, the estate trustee was more successful on the principal issue concerning the release of sale proceeds.

The court considered Family Law Rules 24 and 18 governing costs and offers to settle, as well as the parties’ conduct regarding disclosure and litigation behaviour.

The estate sought full indemnity costs exceeding $45,000, while the respondent sought approximately $7,996.

The court awarded the estate $17,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, structured with partial immediate payment and the balance deferred pending final resolution of the proceedings.

Following a family law trial where oral reasons were given, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant wife had unreasonably sought to deny the respondent husband access to their children, while the husband had engaged in financial nondisclosure and hid assets.

Furthermore, both parties had conducted their business and personal affairs in cash to evade income tax obligations.

Given the mutual misconduct, unreasonableness, and failure to make full disclosure, the court declined to award costs to either party.

Following the breakdown of a marriage involving two children with significant developmental needs, the applicant sought sole custody, retroactive child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and related relief.

The respondent sought sole or joint custody, claimed arrears of child support, and disputed income and property issues.

The court applied the best‑interests analysis under the Divorce Act and ordered joint custody with substantial parenting time to each parent.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $60,000 due to unreliable financial disclosure and unreasonable business deductions, resulting in ongoing child support and spousal support obligations.

The court also determined the parties’ net family property and ordered an equalization payment after finding that transfers to the respondent’s mother were not legitimate loans but attempts to defeat equalization.