Matthew Krofchick

In a high-conflict family law trial, the applicant father sought primary residence and sole decision-making for the parties' seven-year-old child, while the respondent mother sought a 'therapeutic goodbye' to sever the father's relationship with the child.

The mother had made numerous allegations of family violence and child sexual abuse against the father, resulting in criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court found that the mother engaged in severe parental alienation, coached the child to make false abuse allegations, and deliberately sabotaged 51 court-ordered supervised parenting visits.

Concluding that the mother's restrictive gatekeeping and alienating behaviour caused psychological harm to the child, the court awarded sole decision-making and primary residence to the father, along with a five-month no-contact order for the mother.

The court also ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, imputed an income of $60,000 to the mother for child support, and ordered her to pay an equalization payment of $100,327.47.

The parties separated after a 23-year marriage.

The applicant sought spousal support, child support, equalization of net family property, and a trust interest in the respondent's business based on unjust enrichment.

The court imputed income to both parties, awarding spousal and child support based on those imputed incomes.

The court preferred the respondent's expert valuation of his business at nil and dismissed the applicant's claims for unequal division of property and unjust enrichment.

Equalization was ordered with a 25% notional disposition cost applied to the respondent's RRSPs.

The parties separated after a nine-year marriage with no children.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property, spousal support, and a share in the post-separation increase in value of the matrimonial home, which was titled solely in the respondent's name.

The court found the applicant did not establish a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home and was only entitled to share in its value up to the date of separation.

The court valued the respondent's orthodontic practices at $675,000 and determined that funds advanced by the respondent's parents were loans, but discounted them to 10% of their face value due to the low likelihood of repayment.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $606,728.60 and spousal support of $2,228 per month for four and one-half years.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident for which the defendants admitted liability.

The trial proceeded by judge alone to determine whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold and to assess damages.

The court found that the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, specifically chronic widespread pain, mild neurocognitive disorder, and psychological symptoms.

The court dismissed the defendants' threshold motion and awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in general damages, $38,371 for past income loss, $201,294.72 for housekeeping, and various amounts for future care costs and out-of-pocket expenses, with future income loss to be calculated based on a projected retirement date.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings due to his ongoing failure to comply with a court order for financial disclosure.

The parties had a 2014 separation agreement requiring a review of child support after four years.

Since 2018, the father, who is the sole shareholder of a landscaping company, repeatedly failed to provide adequate corporate and personal financial disclosure.

Applying the framework from Mullin v. Sherlock, the court found the father's non-compliance to be deliberate and extensive, and his Answer to raise no reasonable defence.

The court struck the father's pleadings and permitted the mother to proceed to an uncontested trial for child support.

Following a lengthy high-conflict family trial, the court resolved property, support, and post-separation adjustment claims arising from the breakdown of a long marriage involving a failed family business and an adult dependent child with disabilities.

The court found both parties jointly responsible for the destruction of the business and much of the financial ruin, but held that the respondent had a 50% trust interest in the second matrimonial home because the parties operated as a joint family venture and the delayed sale produced a substantial post-separation increase in value.

The court rejected an unequal division of net family property, imputed annual incomes of $15,000 and $65,000, ordered retroactive and ongoing table child support but no section 7 contribution, and awarded transitional lump sum spousal support.

The respondent was also made solely liable for the costs of the consumer proposal and related bankruptcy steps caused by his breach of prior settlement terms.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a nearly seven-year marriage.

The trial focused on spousal support and the equalization of net family property.

The court imputed a higher income to the husband, finding he intentionally underemployed himself and diverted business to a new company run by his parents.

The wife was awarded retroactive and ongoing spousal support on compensatory and need-based grounds.

For equalization, the court valued the husband's business using an income-based approach, discounted his claimed interfamily loans by 90%, and dismissed his claim that the wife absconded with $100,000 in jewelry.

The husband was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $95,967.85.

The respondent was previously found in contempt for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

Despite being given numerous opportunities and being fined, the respondent persisted in his failure to provide complete banking records, authorizations, and a proper business valuation.

The applicant sought orders for the respondent's incarceration and to strike his pleadings.

The court declined to order incarceration, finding it would not likely bring about compliance and would disadvantage the applicant.

However, applying the three-part test from Ferguson v. Charlton, the court struck the respondent's pleadings due to his egregious and deliberate non-compliance, allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested hearing.