James Nelson Eastwood

This two-day focused trial addressed financial issues between common-law ex-spouses, including the valuation and division of the jointly owned family home, repayment of mortgage interest, determination of each party's income for support purposes, and retroactive child and spousal support.

The court upheld a prior consent order regarding the property's valuation formula but awarded the applicant pre- and post-judgment interest due to the respondent's delay in payout.

The court imputed income to the applicant for her dog-breeding business for one year but declined to impute income to the respondent for his farm work.

Child and spousal support were determined based on the parties' incomes, with spousal support being compensatory and subject to review.

The respondent's claim for mortgage interest repayment and the right of first refusal were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior consent order seeking sole custody of one child and adjustments to child support obligations.

The central dispute concerned the respondent’s income, as he reported minimal earnings while maintaining a lifestyle suggesting significant financial resources and receiving substantial financial support from a family trust and alleged loans from his mother.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed within the meaning of s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines due to his voluntary decision to pursue missionary work despite having greater earning capacity.

Income was imputed based on past earning capacity and financial benefits received from family support.

The court attributed an income of $60,000 annually for child support purposes and ordered equal sharing of future section 7 expenses with proper documentation.

In advance of a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal on issues of unjust enrichment and constructive trust relating to corporate shares, the applicant sought updated financial disclosure and interim disbursements and legal expenses under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The court permitted expanded financial disclosure to allow the applicant to investigate a claim to post‑separation increases in share value.

However, the request that the respondent fund updated valuation reports and legal expenses was denied.

The court held that the evidence did not demonstrate a need to level the playing field, that the respondent lacked superior financial resources, and that the applicant failed to show the updated valuation was necessary or that the claim for post‑separation increase in value was meritorious.