Geoffrey Wells

The father brought a motion for summary judgment on his application to terminate child support for his 21-year-old son.

He argued the son was no longer a 'child of the marriage' due to poor academic performance and estrangement, and that his own income had decreased following a heart attack.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the son's status, concluding he remained a child of the marriage as he was enrolled in post-secondary studies and there was no evidence he unjustifiably repudiated the relationship with his father.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the father's income and ability to pay, dismissing the summary judgment motion and ordering further financial disclosure.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a five-and-a-half-year cohabitation and brief marriage.

They have two young children.

The applicant sought sole or joint custody, while the respondent sought sole custody.

The court found a history of domestic violence by the applicant and high conflict between the parties, making joint custody inappropriate.

Sole custody was awarded to the respondent, with generous access to the applicant.

The court imputed income to the applicant at $206,700 and to the respondent at $27,000.

The applicant was ordered to pay table child support and mid-range spousal support for a fixed period of five years.

The court also valued the applicant's business and other assets, resulting in an equalization payment of $91,056.10 owed by the respondent to the applicant.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant, the respondent brought a motion to re-open the appeal based on fresh evidence.

The court declined to re-open the appeal.

The appellant sought costs of $7,500 for preparing responding materials and costs submissions.

The court awarded the appellant costs fixed at $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by failing to allow a deduction for reasonably foreseeable future legal costs related to ongoing litigation at the date of separation, allowing a $300,000 deduction.

The Court also corrected calculation errors in retroactive spousal support and adjusted ongoing spousal support to $1,400 per month.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the equalization payment and spousal support amounts reduced.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings and permitting the respondent to proceed with an uncontested trial, as well as a costs order of $63,032.92.

The motion judge struck the pleadings on an ex parte basis after the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with financial disclosure orders regarding bank accounts established in the children's names.

The Court of Appeal held that while striking pleadings ex parte when a party purports to comply is not endorsed, the motion judge committed no error given his familiarity with the case and the appellant's ongoing non-compliance.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $15,000 awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings for failure to provide disclosure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge failed to consider the appellant's efforts to provide disclosure, the full procedural history including a previous mistrial, and the significant assets at stake.

The order was set aside, the pleadings were reinstated, and the matter was remitted to a case management judge.

The appellant husband appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary spousal and child support obligations contained in minutes of settlement.

He argued that the respondent wife's remarriage to a wealthy man constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellant knew of the serious relationship heading toward marriage when he signed the minutes of settlement, meaning the remarriage was foreseen and could not constitute a material change.

The court also upheld the child support and costs orders.

The appellant wife appealed a trial decision that limited her remedy for the respondent husband's unconscionable conduct to 100 per cent of the difference between their net family properties under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The husband had surreptitiously encumbered and sold a property, effectively gifting $190,000 to a third party to exclude it from his net family property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 5(6) empowers a court to award up to 100 per cent of the value of the offending spouse's net family property, not just the difference between the parties' properties.

The trial judgment was varied to award the appellant the full value of the respondent's net family property.