Howard Warren

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim retroactive and continuing child support, as well as retroactive spousal support.

The respondent father argued that past overpayments should be credited and that retroactive claims should be deferred to trial due to factual disputes regarding income and joint funds.

The court ordered prospective child support and limited retroactive child support to August 2020, when the respondent's alleged overpayments would have been exhausted.

The issue of retroactive spousal support was reserved to trial.

The applicant and her sister, who co-owned the matrimonial home, sought an order to distribute the net proceeds of its sale.

The respondent husband, who had refused to consent to the sale, sought a Mareva injunction to freeze the proceeds, alleging his equalization claim would be defeated.

The court authorized the sale under s. 23(b) of the Family Law Act, dispensing with the respondent's consent.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for a Mareva injunction, finding no real risk of asset dissipation, and ordered the proceeds distributed with one-third held in trust as security for the respondent's potential interest.