Hailey E. Corrigan

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a short marriage.

The applicant claimed she managed the respondent's finances and businesses, sacrificing her own career, while the respondent alleged she fraudulently took control of his assets.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for entitlement based on economic interdependence and immediate need.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $878,422 using a three-year average including corporate pre-tax income, and imputed the applicant's income at $35,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim spousal support of $5,842.50 per month.

The court declined to order retroactive support and made the order on an interim-interim basis.

The Applicant sought summary judgment to enforce child support provisions of a separation agreement, while the Respondent sought to stay the summary judgment and remit the matter to arbitration, and to appoint a specific arbitrator.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the matter, dismissed the Respondent's motion to adjourn the summary judgment, and granted the Respondent's request to stay the summary judgment application, remitting the matter to arbitration.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion to appoint an uncertified arbitrator (William C. McDowell) and instead granted the Applicant's alternate request to appoint a certified family law arbitrator (Cheryl Goldhart), emphasizing the legal requirement for arbitrators to be properly credentialed for awards to be enforceable.

The appellant father appealed a child support order, arguing the trial judge erred in imputing income based on a housing benefit and in making the order retroactive to the child's birth.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's decision regarding imputed income, which was based on an adverse inference due to the father's non-compliance with disclosure orders and the value of free luxury accommodation received from his brother for engineering services.

The court also upheld the retroactive child support order, noting the father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide proper financial disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Rosetta Commisso, appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing her claims against her former mother-in-law, Evangelia Karatzoglou.

Commisso alleged that Evangelia held two properties in trust for her former spouse, Philip Karatzoglou, which should be included in his net family property for equalization purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that there was no evidence of beneficial ownership by Philip in either property (Rainbow Valley or Bullock Drive) and that Commisso lacked standing to advance a trust claim on behalf of her former spouse for equalization purposes.

The court also found summary judgment appropriate in this family law context.

This trial decision addressed child support, income imputation, section 7 expenses, and costs.

The court found the applicant's financial disclosure deficient and imputed income to him based on significant non-taxable housing benefits received from his family's real estate business.

Retroactive child support was ordered from the child's birth.

The court also determined which section 7 expenses were extraordinary and how they should be shared between the parties.

Costs for the parenting order, which was settled prior to trial, were not awarded to either party.

The defendant, N.G., brought a motion for the dismissal of a civil action against her, which the plaintiff, R.Q., consented to.

The primary issue remaining was the award of costs.

The court found that R.Q. should have consented to the dismissal earlier, as a prior family law Minutes of Settlement had already determined the fate of the civil action.

Despite the defendant seeking full or partial indemnity costs (up to $7015.00), the court awarded $2000.00 in costs, deeming the higher amounts disproportionate.

The court acknowledged R.Q.'s credible belief that he was abandoning the action by letting it lie dormant.

This is a costs decision following a successful summary judgment motion by Evangelia Karatzoglou ("Lisa") against Rosetta Commisso ("Rosa").

Lisa sought over $40,000 in costs, while Philip Karatzoglou ("Phil"), the applicant in the main action, sought over $18,000 in costs related to Rosa's claims against Lisa.

Rosa, who is impecunious, argued for no costs and that the amounts sought were excessive.

The court applied the Family Law Rules regarding costs, including the presumption of costs for the successful party and the impact of Rule 18 offers to settle.

The court balanced the factors, including the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and Rosa's financial predicament.

The second respondent, Lisa, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the claims made against her by the first respondent, Rosa.

Rosa claimed that her former spouse, Phil, held a beneficial interest in two properties owned by Lisa, and alternatively claimed unjust enrichment.

The court found that Rosa lacked standing to advance a trust claim on behalf of her former spouse.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of a sham trust or unjust enrichment.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and Rosa's claims against Lisa were dismissed.

This is an appeal from an order granting the respondent leave to amend his Answer seven years after filing, to advance constructive and resulting trust claims in three properties purchased during the marriage and held in the appellant’s name, but sold before the motion for leave to amend.

The appellant argued prejudice due to timing, that claims were statute-barred, and lack of jurisdiction over foreign land.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision that leave to amend was proper, the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied to the trust claims even after property sale, and the in rem jurisdiction issue was not relevant to the leave to amend motion.

Following a motion for interim child support where the respondent father was partially successful, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought $8,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the applicant mother sought $1,500 or that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but reduced the quantum due to divided success and the fact that his offer to settle was not more favourable than the result.

The respondent was awarded $3,500 in costs.

The respondent father brought a motion for interim child support, including retroactive support for a period when he had primary care of the children after restricting the applicant mother's parenting time due to her impaired driving arrest.

The mother opposed the retroactive claim, arguing it would reward the father's unilateral self-help, and questioned his ongoing entitlement due to his fluctuating self-employment income.

The court granted retroactive support effective from the date the father gave formal notice of his claim, finding that the children should not be penalized for the father's conduct.

Ongoing offset support and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses were also ordered based on the parties' 2021 stated incomes.

The Applicant mother sought a temporary parenting order to resume a fixed parenting schedule, including overnight time, after two impaired driving incidents with children in the car.

The Respondent father had largely withheld the children due to safety concerns related to her alcohol abuse.

The court considered the children's best interests, the status quo, and the mother's efforts towards sobriety.

The court granted a modified parenting schedule with overnight access but imposed strict conditions, including supervision by the maternal grandfather for two months and mandatory use of the Soberlink Alcohol Monitoring System.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the applicant, including business records, bank statements, and property valuations.

The applicant argued she did not keep business records after 2015 because she was exempt from filing income tax returns under the Indian Act.

The court granted the motion, holding that while the applicant may not have to keep records for tax purposes, she is still obligated to produce proper accounting records and valuations for the family law proceeding to determine income and property division.