Gordon D. Lemon

Following an earlier endorsement ordering interim spousal support, the parties sought clarification on the tax treatment of payments, the commencement date for monthly support, and the termination date of a $4,000 dividend payment historically paid through the respondent’s company.

The court declined to account for tax consequences in calculating arrears or support, stating that tax treatment is a matter for the Canada Revenue Agency.

The court clarified that the $20,000 monthly interim spousal support obligation was retroactive to November 18, 2010 and payable on the 18th day of each month.

The court further confirmed that the historical $4,000 monthly dividend payment was intended as a temporary measure and would end prior to May 1, 2012.

The respondent was credited for support payments already made when calculating arrears.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, a substantial advance on equalization, interpretation of a prior order regarding dividend payments, and a finding that the respondent breached an earlier court order.

The court applied the test for advances on equalization and held that the applicant failed to demonstrate both a reasonable need for additional funds and a minimum equalization entitlement capable of supporting the requested advance.

The court imputed the respondent’s income at $463,000 and ordered interim spousal support of $20,000 per month retroactive to separation.

The court also interpreted a prior order requiring continuation of historical payments to include a $4,000 monthly dividend payment and ordered arrears to be paid, but declined to impose penalties for breach.

The plaintiff sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over a commercial property allegedly transferred through corporate entities to defeat enforcement of a judgment debt.

The defendants opposed the CPL and moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the claims relating to the property.

The court applied the summary judgment framework articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch and held that the documentary record permitted full appreciation of the issues without a trial.

Although suspicious circumstances existed, the plaintiff failed to establish essential elements of a fraudulent conveyance, including lack of consideration and knowledge by the transferee.

The property was heavily encumbered and had negative equity at the time of transfer, and statutory and equitable claims were either unsupported or barred.

Partial summary judgment was granted and the CPL request dismissed.