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.

On a motion to change the children's primary residence pending trial, the court considered whether the existing status quo should be disturbed on an interim basis.

Although the responding parent had repeatedly failed to comply with access orders and exposed the children to parental conflict, the court held that the untested affidavit record did not clearly and unequivocally establish that the status quo residence was contrary to the children's best interests absent an assessment recommending an immediate change.

The motion was not dismissed, but was adjourned on seven days' notice with strict interim conditions requiring school attendance, compliance with access, and full information-sharing concerning the children's medical care, education, and well-being.

Costs were left to submissions if not agreed.

The applicant husband brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation following his involuntary termination and subsequent retirement.

The respondent wife sought a modest reduction but argued support should continue, suggesting the husband draw on his RRSP capital.

The court found a material change in circumstances and imputed $20,000 in RRSP income to the wife to match the husband's necessary withdrawals, preventing an inequitable depletion of his assets.

Finding the parties had roughly equal assets and the wife had sufficient income capacity, the court terminated spousal support effective December 31, 2017, and ordered the wife to repay $14,355 in overpaid support.

Following a successful appeal that reinstated spousal support payments, the appellant sought costs of the appeal and the original motion on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no bad faith conduct by the respondent but awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of the appellant's more favourable offer to settle.

Noting that the claimed costs of over $116,000 were disproportionate and lacked detailed dockets, the court reduced the fees to account for duplication of effort.

Costs were fixed at $85,727.14 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed an order reducing and ultimately terminating her spousal support.

The respondent, a former police officer, had voluntarily retired at age 51 and successfully argued at first instance that this constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error in concluding the parties had agreed to an early retirement date during their initial settlement.

The Court held that voluntary early retirement by a payor who retains the capacity to earn income does not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The Court also found errors in the motion judge's application of the rule against double-dipping and the imposition of a termination date on support for a disabled spouse.

The original spousal support order was reinstated.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support following his retirement from the Ontario Provincial Police.

The court found that the applicant's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances that was not foreseen in the original order.

Applying the rule against double dipping, the court limited the applicant's income for support purposes to the non-equalized portion of his pension.

The court also imputed income to the respondent based on her ability to generate income from equalized assets.

Spousal support was reduced to $1,050 per month and a fixed termination date was set for October 31, 2021.

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.

Counsel requested clarification regarding the disposition of costs following an appeal decision that directed a new trial on the issue of unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs addendum clarifying that the costs of the first trial are left to the discretion of the judge hearing the new trial.

The husband's father transferred common shares in his company to the husband as part of an estate freeze.

The trial judge found the shares were not a gift and included them in the husband's net family property for equalization.

The Court of Appeal reversed this finding, holding that the shares were a valid gift despite the father's commercial motivations and the husband's lack of knowledge of certain conditions attached to the transfer.

However, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because the trial judge failed to determine the wife's claim for a beneficial ownership interest in the shares via constructive trust before calculating the equalization payment.