Herschel Fogelman

The wife sought costs following her success on two motions, one brought by the husband for disclosure and one brought by the wife for temporary support and release of funds.

The court found the wife was presumptively entitled to costs and had met the criteria under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for one of her offers to settle.

The court also found the husband acted in bad faith by failing to comply with the order to release funds forthwith.

The court awarded the wife costs in the amount of $22,906.79, to be paid from the husband's share of the net proceeds of sale held in trust.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion without notice for a non-dissipation order freezing the respondent husband's assets and for the release of trust funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the request for a non-dissipation order, noting that most of the alleged deceptive financial conduct pre-dated a September 2019 settlement conference and there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking relief.

The court set a timetable for the parties to file materials regarding the release of the trust funds, which will be determined in writing.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support and an advance for litigation expenses following a long marriage and separation.

The respondent opposed entitlement, argued the applicant was intentionally underemployed, and sought disclosure relating to the applicant’s cohabiting partner while also requesting his own advance for costs.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie entitlement to support arising from the traditional marriage and her economic disadvantage.

Due to the respondent’s failure to provide disclosure necessary for an expert income report, the court accepted an interim income figure including an added-back amount for business expenses.

Interim spousal support was ordered below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range to account for contributions from the applicant’s cohabiting partner, while both parties’ requests for advance costs were dismissed and the disclosure request adjourned.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to increase spousal support and continue child support for the parties' 23-year-old daughter.

The respondent father had taken early retirement, receiving a large pension payout, and subsequently returned to work as a consultant.

The court found that the daughter was no longer a 'child of the marriage' as her online continuing education courses did not constitute a reasonable educational plan, terminating child support.

The court found the father's early retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the rule against double-dipping, the court determined the unequalized portion of the father's pension to be considered for support.

The court declined to strictly apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to the mother's unreasonable post-separation financial decisions, and ordered the father to pay increased spousal support of $5,000 per month.

The applicant brought a motion to vary existing child and spousal support orders following the respondent’s earlier-than-expected retirement and pension payout.

The court found a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify reconsideration of spousal support but dismissed the claim for continued child support.

The judge identified unresolved issues regarding the proper actuarial treatment of the pension payout and the appropriate calculation of spousal support, including whether the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines should apply.

The court sought further submissions from counsel and potentially the actuaries to determine the correct approach before finalizing the variation.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the mother sought a declaration that the father breached a prior court order requiring him to make all reasonable efforts to support a shared parenting schedule.

Evidence showed the children had lived exclusively with the father for several years and had become estranged from their mother.

The court found multiple instances where the father failed to co-parent or support the residential arrangements, including unilateral decision‑making, permitting the children to determine their residence contrary to the order, and failing to meaningfully participate in court‑ordered reunification therapy.

A separation agreement resolving financial matters did not displace the prior parenting order.

The court declared the father in breach of the order but granted him sole custody given the children’s ages, the passage of time, and the existing status quo.