Brian Mozessohn

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 parties separated after a seven-year marriage.

The core issues at trial involved claims for retroactive child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and a claim for unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

A significant portion of the trial focused on determining the fair market value of the applicant's 33.3% interest in a logistics company.

The court preferred the valuation evidence of the respondent's expert, with some modifications, valuing the interest at $358,500.00.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim that equalization would be unconscionable due to a post-separation decline in the company's value.

The court ordered the respondent to pay retroactive child support and reimburse the applicant for an overpayment of spousal support.

Ultimately, the applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $183,589.09 to the respondent.