Hannah Rich

The applicant sought an interim order for equal parenting time with the child of the marriage.

The parties, married in 2010 and separated in 2022, continued to reside in the matrimonial home with extended family.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it was premature given unresolved issues like housing and support, and that mediation should precede a formal order.

The court found the affidavit evidence conflicting and declined to make credibility findings at this early stage.

The motion for a 50/50 parenting schedule was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the maintenance of the status quo and the need for the parties to resolve broader issues through mediation and a full case conference.

Specific interim orders were made to guide parental conduct and communication.

This is a case management ruling in a family law matter where the court converted a long motion and cross-motion into a case management attendance due to excessive materials and the need for directions.

The respondent husband was found to be non-compliant with previous court orders, including failing to provide a reliable financial statement, not disclosing a significant inheritance, and dissipating funds intended for spousal support.

The court appointed an expert to value the husband's corporate interests and income and to trace funds.

The court ordered the husband to provide security in the amount of $650,000 for the equalization payment, citing his concerning conduct and the potential unenforceability of future orders.

The husband's motion for interim disbursements was dismissed.

The ruling also set strict directions for future motions and a timeline for further proceedings, including a third-party disclosure motion and a motion to strike the husband's pleadings.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law dispute for failure to pay support.

The appeal was brought to the Divisional Court, but the parties agreed the underlying order was final and should have been appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The respondent on appeal sought to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, while the appellant sought a transfer under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court declined to transfer the appeal, finding it lacked merit and the appellant failed to move expeditiously after being notified of the jurisdictional error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $28,000 awarded to the respondent.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's financial pleadings for failing to comply with an interim order requiring him to pay child support, spousal support, and costs, and to provide financial disclosure.

The father admitted the breach but argued he had provided significant disclosure and was impecunious.

The court rejected the impecuniosity defence, noting the father owned a Ferrari and had an admitted income of $337,000.

However, given the complexity of the financial issues and the principle that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court granted the father one final opportunity to comply with the interim order before his pleadings would be struck.

The applicant wife sought interim child and spousal support.

The court determined the appropriate formula for child support for a child attending university away from home, setting it at the mid-point between the full table amount and the summer formula.

The court also ordered spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) range due to the long-term marriage, the wife's post-separation financial disadvantage, and the husband's failure to pay proper support or provide full disclosure.

Arrears for both child and spousal support were calculated and ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Di Luca J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, including retroactive support dating back to the parties' 2019 separation.

The husband, who had been the primary earner during their 25-year marriage, paid no support for over two years after separation despite earning substantial income.

The court found the husband engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to pay support and ordered interim child and spousal support retroactive to January 1, 2021.

Issues of intentional underemployment and exact quantum were deferred to trial or further submissions.

The applicant, Anna Di Sabatino, sought full recovery costs after successfully obtaining interim spousal support.

The respondent, Mirko Di Sabatino, argued for no costs or costs in his favour, citing his offer to settle and denying bad faith.

The court found the applicant's offer to settle reasonable and more favourable than the outcome, and the respondent's offer "hollow" and reasonably rejected.

While the respondent's conduct, including prolonged disclosure violations, was deemed manifestly unreasonable, the court hesitated to make a formal finding of "bad faith" at this stage, noting the high threshold for such a finding.

Considering all factors, including the complexity and length of the motion, the court awarded the applicant $70,000 in all-inclusive costs, payable within 30 days, with specific enforcement provisions against the respondent's assets if not paid.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 30-year marriage.

The respondent, a successful businessperson with complex corporate structures, repeatedly failed to provide full financial disclosure, leading the court to draw an adverse inference.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $598,810 annually based on a conservative three-year average of his income, including personal benefits paid through his corporations.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $19,750 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2021, resulting in a lump sum payment of $256,750.

The applicant wife brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the respondent husband regarding his personal finances and interests in over twenty companies.

The court ordered the husband to provide the requested disclosure, including a proper financial statement, tax returns, and corporate records, by specified deadlines.

The court dismissed the wife's request for non-party production orders as premature.

The court also ordered the husband to retain a business valuation expert by a set date, failing which it would consider appointing the wife's expert as a court-appointed expert.