Grant W. Gold

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody of the parties' nine-year-old son to the respondent, as well as the trial judge's decisions regarding the matrimonial home valuation, division of notional proceeds, treatment of chattels, and a $125,000 costs award.

The parties had cohabited for 14 years and separated in May 2014.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds except for a calculation error relating to child support arrears, which was corrected.

The court upheld the custody award, finding the trial judge properly applied the best interests of the child test, and upheld the property division and costs award as discretionary decisions entitled to deference.

The applicant was completely successful on a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and boat.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $38,597, arguing the respondent's allegations of financial impropriety were unreasonable and unnecessarily complicated the proceedings.

The court agreed, finding the respondent's conduct egregious and noting the applicant had made multiple reasonable settlement offers.

The court awarded the applicant $38,500 in costs, to be paid from the respondent's share of the net sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking an interim order for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and a boat.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that a sale would prejudice his claim for unequal division based on alleged misappropriation of corporate funds by the applicant and incomplete financial disclosure.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case for unequal division, noting the high threshold for such claims and the applicant's thorough financial disclosure.

The court also highlighted the respondent's history of financial irresponsibility.

The motion for sale was granted, as the court determined it was justified to prevent further delay and unnecessary legal costs.

This family law trial involved a separated cohabiting couple with one child, addressing issues of custody, access, child and spousal support, and division of property.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure inadequate and dishonest, imputing an income of $150,000/year to him.

The applicant was granted sole custody, with the respondent receiving specified access.

No spousal support was awarded as both parties were deemed self-supporting.

Child support was ordered at $1263/month plus $500/month for section 7 expenses, with 10 years of future support secured from the respondent's share of the notional proceeds from the sale of the jointly owned home, due to his history of non-compliance.

The jointly owned property was valued, and various adjustments were made to the parties' respective shares.