Hanna Leah Kofman

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 15-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed an exceptionally high standard of living, with family wealth including a $200 million business fund and multiple luxury properties.

The applicant argued the motion was premature due to an impending $90 million equalization payment and contested the respondent's proposed budget as inflated.

The court found the motion was not premature and the respondent was entitled to support.

Given the applicant's income far exceeded the $350,000 ceiling, the court departed from a strict application of the guidelines, awarding $200,000 per month in interim spousal support and $75,000 per month in interim child support, plus $27,000 monthly for nannies.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's Answer regarding financial claims due to his failure to comply with multiple court orders, including support and disclosure orders.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion, supported by the applicant but opposed by the respondent wife from his concurrent marriage, seeking the release of funds held in trust from the sale of a property to satisfy his support arrears and future obligations.

The court granted the release of funds, finding it would not prejudice the respondent wife's civil claims for misappropriation.

The court declined to strike the husband's Answer at this time, instead ordering him to provide the outstanding financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which the applicant could renew her motion.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a consent order requiring the respondent father to comply with a court-ordered therapeutic reunification process and to provide photographs and weekly updates about the children.

Over 5.5 years of litigation, multiple clinicians found the father obstructed the children's relationship with the mother, while psychological assessments confirmed the mother posed no risk to the children.

The court found multiple breaches of the consent order, declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying father given his pattern of chronic non-compliance, and imposed monetary penalties under Rule 1(8)(a.1) of the Family Law Rules to incentivize future compliance with the therapeutic process.

In this family costs decision following trial, the court held the applicant was successful in all significant respects and entitled to costs under Family Law Rule 24(3).

The court found the applicant beat settlement offers dated October 21, 2025 and December 5, 2025, and assessed comparability on an overall basis rather than term-by-term precision.

Relying on subrules 24(12) and 24(14), the court emphasized the respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct, including delay, non-compliance, and positions that increased trial complexity and expense.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs up to the first offer and full recovery costs thereafter, including expert-related amounts, for a total all-inclusive award of $179,407 payable within 30 days.

The parties separated after an eight-and-a-half-year relationship during which they had one child via in vitro fertilization.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making and primary residence, citing the respondent father's family violence, coercive control, and inability to co-parent.

The respondent sought joint or sole decision-making and shared parenting time.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in family violence and coercive control, and that his hostility toward the applicant undermined his ability to co-parent.

Relying on the evidence and a section 30 assessment, the court awarded sole decision-making and primary residence to the applicant, with specified unsupervised parenting time for the respondent.

Following the vacating of the parties' motions for violating page limitations, the applicant requested an urgent teleconference regarding his spousal support motion.

The court expressed frustration with the parties' litigious conduct and the broader culture of unreasonableness and incivility in family court.

The court scheduled the applicant's spousal support motion and directed the respondent to file a 14B motion for leave to proceed with her motion.

The parties were scheduled to proceed with motions, but both filed affidavits and exhibits that grossly exceeded the page limitations set out in a prior Case Conference Order and the court's Notices to the Profession.

Neither party sought leave for the voluminous filings.

The court vacated the motions, holding counsel responsible for the non-compliance, and required the parties to seek leave via a Form 14B motion before the motions could be rescheduled.

The court also directed counsel to provide a copy of the endorsement to their clients and noted the court's ability to order lawyers not to charge fees for such work.