Georgina Lee Carson

In an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the husband's pleadings for non-disclosure and breaches of court orders, the wife sought child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and an oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act.

The court imputed an annual income of $305,682 to the husband, incorporating retained corporate earnings and personal expenses paid by his company.

The court ordered the husband to pay $124,745 in retroactive child support, $215,142 in lump sum spousal support, and a $163,504 equalization payment.

Furthermore, finding that the husband operated the jointly-owned business oppressively and exclusively for his own benefit, the court vested the wife's shares in the husband and ordered him to indemnify her against any corporate liabilities.

The applicant brought a motion for a temporary restraining order against the respondent under section 46 of the Family Law Act following a history of alleged domestic violence.

The respondent had recently been acquitted of criminal assault charges against the applicant and their daughter, though the trial judge found him probably guilty.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Malik, the court admitted the factual findings from the criminal trial and accorded them significant weight.

Finding that the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her physical and psychological safety, the court granted the restraining order.

The applicant brought a motion for interim relief in a family law proceeding characterized by the respondent's significant financial nondisclosure.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $50,000 in interim disbursements to allow the applicant to retain financial and tax experts to value complex corporate assets.

The court also imputed income to the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay $5,500 per month in interim spousal support, retroactive to January 1, 2019.

Finally, the respondent was ordered to designate the applicant as an irrevocable beneficiary on a $250,000 life insurance policy to secure the interim support obligation.

The applicant sought costs of $27,750 on a substantial indemnity basis following a motion where she successfully proved the respondent breached a prior court order, though she was unsuccessful on other claims.

The respondent sought costs of $8,458.05, claiming success on a contested adjournment.

The court found the respondent was not entitled to costs as he was unsuccessful on the principal issue of his breach.

However, the court reduced the applicant's costs claim, noting over-lawyering, unnecessary case law, and excessive costs submissions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $10,000.

The applicant sought various orders, including a declaration that the respondent was in breach of a prior disclosure order, imposition of sanctions, a civil restraining order, interim disbursements, an advance on equalization, and life insurance designation.

The court found the respondent in willful breach of the disclosure order for failing to provide a business valuation and income analysis.

As a sanction, the respondent was ordered to make significant payments to the applicant.

The requests for a restraining order and advance payments were dismissed without prejudice due to conflicting evidence and insufficient information, respectively.

The life insurance designation request was adjourned.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that a prior order declaring the jurisdiction of the Ontario court was a final order, rather than a temporary one.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the parties had consented to the jurisdiction of the Ontario court for all purposes.

The appeal was dismissed, along with a motion to introduce fresh evidence, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

In a family law dispute involving international connections, the respondent husband moved to stay the Ontario proceeding and transfer jurisdiction to France, arguing that the parties were French nationals, had signed a marriage contract referencing French law, and that a divorce proceeding had already commenced in France.

The court held that a prior consent order declaring Ontario to be the appropriate jurisdiction operated as res judicata and was not temporary.

The husband’s attempt to revisit jurisdiction was rejected, particularly in light of his repeated breaches of court orders and failures to provide disclosure.

The court dismissed the jurisdiction motion, ordered that the French proceeding be withdrawn, and directed that proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home be placed in trust due to concerns about the husband’s non-compliance with prior orders.