Vivian Alterman

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage.

The wife sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the husband dissipated assets and hid income from his pizza franchise.

The court relied on a jointly retained business valuator to determine the husband's income and the value of his business, dismissing the wife's claims of hidden assets.

The court ordered an equalization payment, dismissed the husband's claim for occupation rent, and dismissed the wife's claim for spousal support.

Child support was ordered based on the imputed incomes of both parties.

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.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal and child support.

The applicant husband, a cardiologist, historically earned around $1 million annually but claimed a reduced income of $596,000 for 2021.

The court imputed the husband's income at $712,526 and the wife's income at $192,400 due to her lack of financial disclosure regarding her corporate interests.

The court found the wife had a strong prima facie entitlement to non-compensatory spousal support and ordered the husband to pay $12,127.50 per month in interim spousal support and $2,880 per month in interim child support for their adult child.

The husband was also ordered to designate the wife as the irrevocable beneficiary of a $500,000 life insurance policy.

The parties separated after a long marriage during which the applicant was primarily a homemaker and the respondent built a successful legal career.

At trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property, including the valuation of the respondent's home, his interest in a Florida LLC, and corporate debts.

The court also determined the respondent's income for support purposes, attributing some corporate pre-tax income to him, and ordered retroactive and ongoing spousal support based on both compensatory and needs-based grounds.

The applicant brought a motion to temporarily reduce his spousal support obligation from $25,800 per month to $5,300 per month, alleging a significant drop in income due to the loss of a major client.

The court found the motion premature because the applicant had failed to provide complete financial disclosure for the year in question, preventing the respondent's valuator from analyzing his income.

The motion was adjourned without a date, and the applicant was ordered to continue paying the full support amount until further order or agreement.

In a high-conflict family law dispute following a long-term marriage, the applicant sought extensive interim relief including the appointment of a receiver, interim disbursements, support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent's financial circumstances were complex, involving multiple corporations and a significant pending tax liability.

The court declined to appoint a receiver but ordered the appointment of a joint expert to determine the respondent's income, requiring the respondent to pay the $50,000 retainer.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $25,000 in interim disbursements to level the playing field, awarded interim child and spousal support based on an imputed income, and granted the applicant temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, interim disbursements, and a non-depletion order following the breakdown of a 51-year traditional marriage.

The respondent husband, who controlled a lucrative family business, had ceased paying support and changed his compensation structure from salary to share redemption, significantly depleting his capital.

The husband brought a cross-motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and cottage.

The court found the husband was deliberately attempting to evade his support and equalization obligations.

The court ordered the husband to pay $20,000 per month in interim spousal support, a retroactive lump sum of $187,500, and $200,000 in interim disbursements.

The court also issued a non-depletion order and adjourned the husband's motion for the sale of the properties to the trial judge.

The applicant brought a motion for interim disbursements, a preservation order, and to lift a stay of enforcement of a temporary support order.

The court found that the respondent had been reticent in providing financial disclosure, necessitating the applicant to incur significant expert and legal fees to determine his true income.

To level the playing field, the court ordered the respondent to pay $60,000 as an interim disbursement under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The court declined to make a preservation order and ordered that the stay of enforcement remain in place, provided the interim disbursement is paid.