Evelyn Rayson

The applicant brought a motion seeking credits towards an equalization payment and retroactive child support, while the respondent sought post-judgment interest on the equalization payment and the removal of a temporary restraining order.

The court denied the applicant's request for credits for periodic spousal support and mortgage arrears, but ordered him to pay his half of a lien and legal costs.

The court awarded the respondent post-judgment interest at 3% on the equalization payment due to the applicant's deliberate delay.

The applicant was awarded retroactive child support, which was set off against the amount he owed the respondent.

The temporary restraining order against the respondent was maintained.

In the context of an ongoing family law arbitration, the respondent wife brought a motion for third-party document production against the applicant husband's business partner and related corporations.

The documents were sought to assess the soft costs of a real estate development project for equalization purposes.

The third party opposed the motion, alleging the wife breached the implied undertaking rule by tipping off the CRA, which led to an audit.

The court found no satisfactory evidence to justify the third party's sudden withdrawal of cooperation and granted the motion for document production pursuant to Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant wife sought spousal support and an equalization of net family property, arguing that a 1998 estate freeze by the respondent husband's father was a fraudulent conveyance designed to defeat her equalization claim.

The court dismissed the fraudulent conveyance claim, finding no unlawful intention and noting the applicant was not a creditor at the time.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay $4,500 per month in spousal support for a maximum of 10 years.

The court also determined the value of the respondent's shares in the family business, applying a 30% discount for lack of control and deducting contingent taxes, and dismissed the applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property.