Ilana Zylberman

The moving party (father) sought costs of $669,000 following a successful motion to change child and spousal support.

The responding party (mother) had unsuccessfully sought to reopen numerous issues from a prior trial, alleging the moving party had significant unreported cash income.

The court found the responding party acted unreasonably, though not in bad faith, and that the moving party's offer to settle met the requirements of Rule 18(14).

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the moving party $500,000 in costs, declining to order full recovery or to make the costs enforceable as support.

The parties, both physicians, engaged in highly conflicted litigation over child and spousal support following their divorce.

The father brought a motion to change child support as the children commenced university, and the mother sought to increase spousal support and impute significant unreported cash income to the father.

The court rejected the mother's expert evidence on imputing income due to bias and errors, preferring the father's expert.

The court established a framework for child support while the children attend university, ordered the father to pay minor arrears for table and s. 7 expenses, and dismissed the mother's claim for increased spousal support, finding no material change in circumstances.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking summary judgment to enforce an alleged oral settlement reached during a settlement meeting.

The applicant argued that no binding settlement had been reached because essential terms remained unresolved and the parties intended any agreement to be finalized only through a comprehensive written separation agreement.

The court reviewed the governing principles for determining whether a binding settlement exists, including the requirement of consensus on all essential terms and objective evidence of a meeting of the minds.

Examining the parties’ post‑meeting correspondence and the proposed terms, the court found ongoing negotiations, material variations between proposals, and clear indications that a final written separation agreement was required.

As a result, the court concluded that no enforceable settlement had been reached.

Following a lengthy marriage between two medical professionals, the parties proceeded to trial to resolve financial issues including equalization of net family property, spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court determined that equalization under the Family Law Act was appropriate and rejected the applicant’s claim for an unequal division under s. 5(6), finding that equalization would not be unconscionable.

The court calculated an equalization payment and addressed numerous disputed property valuation issues, including notional disposition costs and treatment of premarital assets.

The court also found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs-based grounds due to reduced earning capacity after assuming greater childcare responsibilities during the marriage.

Orders were made for ongoing spousal support, retroactive support adjustments, set‑off child support, allocation of section 7 expenses, life insurance to secure support obligations, and timelines for vacating the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order to move the parties' 12-year-old child from a private school to a public school gifted program for Grade 7.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing the child should remain at the private school and that the issue required a trial.

The court found it had jurisdiction to make a temporary order regarding school choice if it was in the child's best interests.

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding the mother had not met the onus of demonstrating that a change in schools was in the child's best interests at this time, particularly given the child's preference to remain at his current school and the lack of comprehensive expert evidence evaluating both options.

The court ordered an independent assessment under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act to determine the issue for trial.