James Peluch

The mother brought a motion seeking a section 30 assessment of the children and a right of first refusal during the father's parenting time.

The parties continued to live in the same house post-separation and engaged in high-conflict monitoring of each other.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a right of first refusal would exacerbate conflict and that a section 30 assessment was overly intrusive and disproportionate.

The court maintained the existing 2/2/3 parenting schedule and ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer on consent.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent following his early retirement, retroactive spousal and child support, section 7 expenses for their son's post-secondary education, and a further equalization payment.

The court found the respondent was intentionally underemployed by retiring early and imputed his income at $96,286.

Spousal support was varied and continued, while child support was found to have ended in June 2020.

The claims for retroactive section 7 expenses and a further equalization payment were dismissed.

The applicant submitted written submissions pointing out errors in the court's previous DivorceMate calculations for spousal support.

The respondent did not reply.

The court acknowledged the errors, which included failing to update annual income, override child support, and remove special expenses from year to year.

The court corrected the calculations and issued a corrigendum updating the spousal support arrears and ongoing monthly obligations.

Following the breakdown of a long-term marriage with two children, the court determined issues of custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the respondent’s financial disclosure unreliable and imputed income of $36,000 based on earning capacity as an experienced hairstylist.

Custody of the remaining minor child was granted to the applicant with flexible access to the respondent subject to the child’s wishes.

The respondent was ordered to pay table child support while the applicant was ordered to pay time‑limited spousal support of $1,000 per month for five years.

The court also resolved disputes concerning equalization, including valuation of assets, exclusion of personal injury settlement proceeds, and property interests, resulting in an equalization payment payable to the respondent.