Gil David Rumstein

Following the breakdown of a 16‑year marriage, the court addressed property division, child support, and spousal support.

The applicant sought unequal division of the matrimonial home and enforcement of several written agreements purporting to allocate the property to her.

The court held the agreements unenforceable due to lack of independent legal advice, uncertainty, and non‑compliance with statutory requirements, and found that equalization would not be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent established entitlement to spousal support primarily on a needs basis due to a serious psychiatric condition limiting employability.

The court ordered ongoing and retroactive spousal support, modest retroactive child support, and equal division of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The appellant appealed a child support order, challenging the imputation of rental income, retroactive support, and the imputation of income during a period of voluntary leave.

The Divisional Court upheld the decisions on rental income and retroactive support.

However, the court found a palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion that there was no evidence the appellant's leave was taken to care for his infant child.

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the imputation of income for the leave period and adjusting the costs order accordingly.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary an earlier order seeking retroactive child support, a repayment schedule for arrears, and contribution to s. 7 extraordinary expenses for the parties’ children.

Applying the principles in S.(D.B.) v. G.(S.R.), the court considered the delay in seeking increased support, the payor’s conduct, the circumstances of the children, and potential hardship.

The court found the delay reasonable and concluded the payor had engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose increased income and by not adhering to disclosure obligations under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Retroactive child support was ordered for three years prior to the application.

The court also limited annual s. 7 expenses for extracurricular activities and set a payment schedule for arrears.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering the sale of a farm property and a subsequent order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the summary judgment, agreeing that financial imperatives required the property to be sold.

The Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the second order, permitting the appellant to amend his claim, except for asserting a claim for a vesting order or proprietary remedy.

A stay on an order for exclusive interim possession was continued with conditions.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.