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.

Following a lengthy motion concerning interim child support, spousal support, and interim costs in a high‑income family law dispute, both parties sought costs.

The court assessed success in light of the motion result and competing offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

Although the applicant obtained retroactive interim child support, the respondent was found to have been more successful overall because the ordered support was lower than his offer and the applicant’s claims for interim spousal support and interim costs were dismissed.

The court considered proportionality, counsel rates, time spent, and the financial circumstances of the parties.

Exercising its discretion under the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the applicant to pay partial costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought interim child support of $50,000 per month, interim spousal support of $50,000 per month, and interim costs in litigation against a high‑income professional athlete earning approximately $12 million USD annually.

The court considered the Child Support Guidelines and jurisprudence on high‑income payors, including the presumption of table support and discretion under s. 4 where income exceeds $150,000.

The applicant’s proposed budget included a substantial monthly savings component intended to fund future housing and long‑term financial security for the child.

The court held that on an interim basis the respondent’s proposal of $28,000 per month adequately covered the child’s current expenses pending trial, while the issues of savings and discretionary spending should be fully examined at trial.

The court found the evidence regarding cohabitation and permanence of the relationship highly conflicting and declined to order interim spousal support, and also declined interim litigation funding due to insufficient evidence of current legal debt.

The applicant brought a motion seeking substantial interim child support, retroactive child support, spousal support, and interim costs arising from a relationship that produced a child.

The respondent acknowledged paternity but disputed that the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act and sought an adjournment to permit questioning regarding the applicant’s claimed budget and the nature of the relationship.

The court granted the adjournment but imposed financial terms.

It ordered interim child support of $25,000 per month retroactive to the commencement of the claim and continuing until further order or year‑end.

The court rejected both the applicant’s request for $50,000 per month and the respondent’s proposed $15,000 per month as inappropriate in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed a family law judgment regarding property equalization and expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's treatment of camp and day care expenses, the valuation of tax shelters, the exclusion of a post-valuation date tax instalment as a debt, and the refusal to reimburse post-valuation date mortgage overpayments.

The trial judge's costs award was also upheld as a proper exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a default judgment granting divorce and corollary relief.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent's affidavit material filed in support of the ex parte motion for default judgment misled the court by failing to disclose that an answer and counter-petition had been served, misstating child support payments, and failing to disclose that the appellant had counsel of record.

The appeal was allowed and the default judgment was set aside in relation to the corollary relief due to the want of full and fair disclosure.