G.A. MacPherson

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The respondent father argued he met the 40% shared parenting threshold under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, warranting a reduction in support.

The court found the father failed to establish he met the threshold and ordered full guideline child support based on his income of $103,000.

Spousal support was denied due to insufficient funds.

The court also ordered the children to attend public school unless the mother's family continued to fund their private school tuition.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for contempt regarding parenting time, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $13,327 on a full indemnity basis, while the respondent proposed $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, noting her success and the respondent's misguided contempt motion.

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 moving party father brought a motion to find the responding party mother in contempt of a court order regarding supervised and virtual parenting time.

The father alleged the mother was alienating the children against him.

The court reviewed evidence from the children's school, doctor, and supervised access workers, which showed the children experienced severe distress and refused to engage with the father despite the mother's encouragement.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the mother had not deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the order, as she had taken all reasonable steps to facilitate the visits.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with previous court orders regarding financial disclosure and support payments, and to add third parties to the proceeding.

The respondent argued that his mental health challenges prevented him from complying with the orders.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful, noting inconsistencies between his claimed incapacity and his actions, such as international travel.

However, as striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court declined to strike the pleadings at this time, giving the respondent one final 30-day opportunity to comply.

The motion to add parties was adjourned.

The parties separated and negotiated a separation agreement.

The respondent's counsel placed the executed agreement in escrow pending review of its commercial components by corporate counsel.

The applicant sought to enforce the agreement, arguing the escrow condition was satisfied or waived.

The court found that the respondent's corporate counsel did review the agreement and provided advice, satisfying the condition.

Furthermore, the court implied a term that the escrow condition had to be satisfied within 21 days, preventing the respondent from holding the agreement in limbo indefinitely.

The separation agreement was declared valid and enforceable.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Cyprus.

The respondent mother had travelled to Canada with the child for what the father claimed was a one-month vacation, but she retained the child in Canada, alleging the father consented to a permanent move and that returning the child would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to domestic violence.

The court found the child's habitual residence was Cyprus and that the father did not consent to a permanent relocation.

The court rejected the mother's allegations of domestic violence, finding her evidence lacked credibility and detail, and concluded the Article 13(b) grave risk exception was not met.

The child was ordered returned to Cyprus.

At the commencement of a continued trial on parenting time, the applicant father brought a motion to strike the respondent mother's pleadings due to her continuous and willful breach of numerous court orders.

The court found that the mother had engaged in severe parental alienation, refused to participate in court-ordered reunification therapy, and repeatedly breached supervised parenting orders, including an incident requiring police enforcement.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court struck the mother's answer and trial affidavit.

The court ordered that the mother's parenting time be at the sole discretion of the father, finding that a step-up parenting plan was not in the child's best interests given the mother's lack of insight and ongoing alienating behaviours.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the affidavit evidence from both parties to be highly contradictory on fundamental issues, including the children's primary residence, payment of expenses, and the parties' respective roles in the family business.

Given the irreconcilable evidence, the need for credibility findings, and an imminent trial scheduled in three months, the court dismissed the motion and reserved costs to the trial judge.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for ongoing non-disclosure and failure to comply with court orders.

The respondent, who resides abroad, failed to provide extensive financial disclosure regarding his foreign corporate interests, despite a consent order requiring him to do so.

Much of the disclosure provided was in Russian without certified translations, contrary to the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be wilful, tactical, and obstructionist, noting his history of ignoring previous support and property sale orders.

The motion was granted, the respondent's pleadings were struck, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The parties cohabited for 16 years and had two children.

Following separation, the applicant sought child support, section 7 expenses, and enforcement of a trust agreement regarding a property, while the respondent sought spousal support, equalization, and a trust interest in the applicant's properties.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and his concealment of corporate interests, ordering retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent's claims for spousal support, equalization, and property interests were dismissed, as were the applicant's claims for a restraining order and reimbursement under the trust agreement, which was found to be statute-barred.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, life insurance as security, and disclosure.

The respondent, a self-employed IT consultant operating through a personal services corporation, argued his income was lower due to retained earnings and reduced hours from a medical condition.

The court imputed income to the respondent, finding no valid business reason to retain pre-tax corporate earnings and noting he was underemployed compared to his medical restrictions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $2,250 per month and maintain $700,000 in life insurance designating the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and the release of funds.

The parties consented to the sale of the home and the release of certain funds.

On the contested issue of temporary spousal support, the court found that the applicant, who earns $157,000 annually and recently completed her Ph.D., did not establish a prima facie case for either compensatory or non-compensatory support.

The motion for temporary spousal support was dismissed.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict parenting dispute over their 9-year-old child.

The court found that the respondent mother had engaged in severe parental alienation, resulting in the child having no contact with the applicant for over two years and exhibiting a resist-refuse dynamic.

Finding that the mother lacked insight and had sabotaged reunification efforts, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to reverse primary residence and award sole decision-making authority to the applicant father.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, seeking to impute an income of $250,005 to the respondent father, a pilot whose employment in Qatar was recently terminated.

Both parties claimed mental health issues impacting their ability to work.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent, finding insufficient evidence of intentional underemployment, and instead based child support on his new conditional employment salary of $74,285.

Temporary spousal support was dismissed as the parties' current incomes were similar, and section 7 expenses were ordered to be shared proportionately.

The parties separated after a long marriage characterized by the Applicant's controlling and abusive behaviour towards the Respondent.

Following separation, the Applicant engaged in a relentless campaign of parental alienation, successfully alienating the older child and attempting to alienate the younger child, E.S. The Applicant falsely alleged the Respondent had severe mental health issues to justify withholding the children.

The court found the Respondent's mental health was stable and that the Applicant's alienating conduct constituted family violence.

To protect E.S. from further alienation, the court ordered that E.S. reside primarily with the Respondent, who was granted exclusive decision-making authority, with the Applicant receiving specified parenting time.

The applicant brought an interim motion for child and spousal support.

Both parties were self-employed.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $100,000 based on her consulting contract.

For the respondent, who owned a holding company with a 50% interest in a dental distribution business, the court applied section 18 of the Child Support Guidelines to attribute pre-tax corporate income to him.

The court found the respondent had effective control over dividend declarations and there was no business reason for retaining the earnings.

The respondent's income was determined to be $820,000.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $16,000 per month and child support of $10,000 per month.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a written offer to settle made by the respondent.

During a settlement meeting, the respondent orally stated the offer was 'no longer on the table', but the applicant subsequently accepted the offer in writing before the respondent withdrew it in writing.

The court held that under the Family Law Rules and contract law, an oral pronouncement cannot displace a written offer to settle.

The court found no clear injustice in enforcing the settlement and ordered that the offer to settle is enforceable.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the jointly held matrimonial home and sought punitive damages.

The applicant alleged fraud and deceit because the respondent did not disclose that the numbered company purchasing the home was owned by the respondent's parents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had executed the agreement, the identity of the purchaser was not a material term, no false statement was made, and the applicant suffered no damages as the offer was unconditional and above the list price.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to find the respondent in contempt of two previous court orders regarding the preservation of business assets and the transfer of $160,000.

The court found that while the respondent breached the orders, he could not be found in contempt because one order was for the payment of money, and the other breaches were not deliberate due to COVID-19 business closures.

However, under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to transfer the $160,000 into trust within 30 days, failing which his answer would be struck.

The court also granted the applicant's request for third-party banking records.