Heather Hansen

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support of $50,000 per month following a short relationship with a high-income respondent earning $2.88 million annually.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for non-compensatory entitlement due to economic dependency created during the relationship.

Noting the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are not presumptive for incomes over $350,000, the court conducted an individualized analysis of the parties' lavish lifestyle and the applicant's short-term needs.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $25,000 per month retroactive to April 1, 2019.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions in a family law proceeding.

The court reviewed the continuation of a temporary spousal support order for a personal care assistant (PCA) and decided on two Form 14B motions for leave to bring further motions.

The Respondent sought leave to compel production of the Applicant's entire medical file, which was denied due to disproportionality and lack of necessity.

The Applicant sought leave for several reliefs, including striking affidavits, a restraining order, and interim disbursements.

The court dismissed most of the Applicant's requests for leave but granted leave for a motion for interim costs, recognizing the complexity of the Respondent's financial affairs and the need to "level the playing field." The court also clarified its ongoing case management role.

The applicant sought an order addressing the income tax consequences of a temporary spousal support order previously made.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a lump sum equal to the applicant's tax liability on the periodic spousal support received in 2018.

The court also directed a review of the ongoing necessity and cost of the applicant's 24/7 personal care assistant.

The court considered costs for four motions in a family law case where both parties had mixed success.

The respondent sought $20,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the applicant, self-represented, argued for costs to be reserved to the trial judge.

The court applied Family Law Rule 24(1) and principles from Serra v. Serra and Boucher v. Public Accountants Council of Ontario.

It found the respondent moderately more successful on child-related issues, assessing her overall success at approximately 20%.

The court awarded the respondent $4,000 in all-inclusive costs, finding it fair and reasonable given the mixed results and the objectives of costs awards.

The appellant appealed from a contempt order under which he was ordered jailed.

On the eve of the expedited appeal hearing, the appellant accepted an offer to settle under which he agreed to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on a full indemnity scale.

The court found the costs claimed to be wholly disproportionate and far beyond the range of anything that could be considered reasonable, even on a full indemnity basis.

The court fixed costs of the appeal at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes on a full indemnity basis.

Additionally, the appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the order underlying the contempt finding and several other orders, but was largely unsuccessful.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

No order was made as to costs in relation to the respondent's motion to deny audience to the appellant.

The parties brought multiple motions concerning parenting arrangements, equalization of net family property, and retroactive child support.

The court addressed the need for a fixed parenting schedule, dismissing the applicant's request for a final shared custody order due to ongoing conflict.

Regarding equalization, both parties' motions for an equalization payment were dismissed, but the applicant's request for further disclosure concerning the respondent's business valuation was granted.

The respondent's motion for retroactive child support was also dismissed, deemed a matter for trial.

The appellant appealed from an order striking his pleadings and limiting his trial participation rights in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought spousal support and equalization of net family property following a brief marriage.

The appellant failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring disclosure of financial information and answers to undertakings and refusals given during examination.

The motion judge struck the appellant's Answer and imposed restrictions on his participation at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but varied the order to augment the appellant's trial participation rights, permitting him to make an opening statement, cross-examine witnesses, and make closing submissions without requiring leave of the trial judge.

The appellant sought to set aside a separation agreement executed four years earlier under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act on the basis that the respondent failed to disclose significant assets.

The trial judge found that while the respondent had indeed failed to disclose certain family business interests, shareholder loan payments, and capital income from share sales, these assets were not "significant" within the meaning of section 56(4) in the context of the settlement negotiations.

The trial judge determined that the non-disclosed assets had no bearing on equalization and were irrelevant to support, as the parties had agreed to support based on an income figure substantially higher than the respondent's actual income at the time of separation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the application.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis following a successful motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the respondent's evasive responses and repeated breaches of court orders amounted to bad faith and a deliberate attempt to frustrate the applicant's claims.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $30,539.97, noting that the respondent's conduct justified the higher scale of costs.

The Children and Family Services for York Region ("the Society") brought a motion seeking three orders: placing a child (A.G.) in the Society's care, appointing independent legal counsel for the children (A.G. and M.G.), and requiring the father (J.G.) to undergo a sexual behaviours assessment, including phallometric testing.

The motion to place A.G. in care was adjourned by consent for kin assessments.

The court dismissed the request for independent legal counsel, finding it unnecessary and potentially detrimental in a case marked by parental alienation, where the children's views were already known and potentially influenced by the mother.

The court also dismissed the request for a sexual behaviours assessment, ruling it was not "necessary" under section 98(2) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, given the inconclusive nature of the allegations, the intrusive nature of the testing, and the existence of other grounds for protection related to parental conflict and alienation.

The applicant father sought to change child and spousal support terms of a 2013 separation agreement following his involuntary job loss in December 2017.

The respondent mother disputed the job loss and opposed the motion.

The court found the termination was genuine and involuntary.

Regarding spousal support, the court found the parties had agreed via text in April 2014 that support would cease upon the respondent's remarriage in February 2014, and the parties had acted consistently with this agreement for nearly four years.

The court rescinded arrears accumulated after April 30, 2014 and suspended prospective spousal support payments, but declined to terminate the respondent's entitlement to spousal support entirely without further evidence.

The court ordered the respondent to repay funds seized by the Family Responsibility Office.

For child support, the court found the job loss constituted a material change and adjusted support downward during the unemployment period, then upward upon the applicant's new employment at higher income.

The court also addressed section 7 expenses for the child's ballet lessons, establishing a fixed annual budget with proportional contributions based on the parties' respective incomes.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging material misrepresentation and non-disclosure by the respondent regarding the valuation of a company.

The respondent had received letters of intent to purchase the company and was negotiating a buyout of his partner's interest while simultaneously negotiating the separation agreement with the applicant, without disclosing this information.

The court found that the respondent's failure to disclose this information constituted a material misrepresentation, both subjectively and objectively, and breached the duty of utmost good faith in family law negotiations.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the entire separation agreement, declining to re-write it or address the oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act at this stage.

Following a lengthy family law trial where both parties experienced divided success, the applicant sought costs on the basis of the respondent's alleged bad faith and failure to disclose.

The respondent sought reimbursement of a $140,000 interim disbursement payment.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' offers to settle and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The court concluded that the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and, given the divided success and the offers to settle, ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The respondent's request for reimbursement was also denied.

Following a trial judgment that terminated child support for the parties' two children, the court determined the ongoing quantum of spousal support.

The parties' separation agreement provided for a combined unallocated support payment of $10,000 net per month.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $11,000 gross per month in spousal support effective January 1, 2018, and dismissed the respondent's request for a retroactive order and reimbursement of alleged overpayments.

The applicant sought to set aside a 2010 Separation Agreement, alleging the respondent failed to disclose significant corporate assets and that she signed under duress.

Alternatively, she sought to set aside the support provisions.

The respondent sought to uphold the agreement but requested extensive variations to support, including retroactive termination of child support and imputation of income to the applicant.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the agreement, finding the non-disclosure was not significant in the context of the negotiations and there was no duress.

The court also dismissed most of the respondent's variation requests due to a lack of a material change in circumstances, but granted the termination of child support for the two adult children who no longer lived with the applicant.

Following a 12-day family law trial primarily focused on the children's estrangement from the applicant father and the respondent mother's mobility claim to Arizona, both parties sought costs.

The court found that success on the parenting issues was divided, as the father did not achieve a custody reversal and the mother was not permitted to move.

Neither party was found to have acted in bad faith or to be markedly more reasonable on the parenting issues, resulting in no costs awarded for that portion.

However, the mother was more successful and reasonable regarding the financial issues, particularly the valuation of the father's professional building.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST for the financial issues.

During a family law trial, the respondent sought to qualify his long-time accountant as an expert to provide opinion evidence on his income for spousal support purposes.

The applicant opposed the request on the basis that the evidence was not necessary and the accountant lacked independence.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks and concluded that the proposed expert evidence was not necessary.

Furthermore, the court found the accountant lacked specific expertise in support income determination and lacked the requisite independence and impartiality, having served as the respondent's accountant for nearly four decades.

The request to admit the expert opinion evidence was denied.

The Applicant sought an order for $500,000 in interim disbursements for legal and valuation costs in a family law proceeding where she was attempting to set aside a separation agreement.

The Respondent opposed the motion.

The court found that the Applicant's claims had merit but criticized her for "splitting her case" in her reply affidavit regarding cost calculations and efforts to secure financing.

The court also noted the Applicant's failure to adequately explain past costs despite favourable awards and her insufficient efforts to self-finance.

Considering the complexity of the Respondent's financial affairs requiring expert review, the court ordered the Respondent to pay $140,000 in interim disbursements, allocated equally between expert and legal fees, payable in two installments.

This endorsement addresses procedural matters in an appeal concerning child support and s.7 expenses.

The court scheduled a settlement conference prior to the appeal hearing, emphasizing the exchange of offers to settle.

It also issued an order allowing for a paperless/electronic appeal, with counsel responsible for ensuring technology is in place, and requiring a paper copy of the respondent's factum.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The children resided primarily with the mother and became estranged from the father.

The father sought a 90-day custody reversal to repair the relationship, alleging parental alienation, while the mother sought to relocate with the children to Arizona.

The court found the children were unjustifiably rejecting the father and that the mother had failed to facilitate their relationship.

The court denied the custody reversal but ordered joint custody with a strict access schedule for the father, and denied the mother's mobility application.

The court also resolved financial issues, valuing the father's professional building at $600,000 and ordering him to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.