Jane Alexandra Connon

The applicant sought costs of $20,000 on a full recovery basis following a successful motion for temporary spousal support, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to provide financial disclosure.

The respondent argued costs should be deferred to the trial judge or no costs awarded due to divided success and financial hardship.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful and the respondent's conduct was unreasonable but did not amount to bad faith.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $14,924.77.

The appellant husband brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring him to pay $8,500 per month in temporary spousal support and to obtain an income valuation.

The court granted leave to appeal on two issues: whether the motions judge erred in averaging the husband's income over three years instead of using his most recent line 150 income, and whether the motions judge erred by ordering an income valuation when neither party had requested such relief.

The court found both issues raised reasons to doubt the correctness of the order and involved matters of general importance.

A request to stay the support order pending appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought interim custody or primary residence of the parties’ child, defined access for the respondent, child support, and contribution to daycare expenses.

The respondent sought expanded access and a change of the child’s school.

The court held that the child’s primary residence should remain with the applicant given the status quo and the child’s long-standing residence and daycare arrangements.

The court rejected the respondent’s claim that his parenting time reached the 40 percent threshold under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered table child support based on the respondent’s income for relevant periods.

The request to change the child’s school was dismissed on an interim basis pending further evidence.

A spouse in a 30‑year common law relationship sought temporary spousal support following separation, alleging the respondent failed to make full financial disclosure and understated his income through a closely‑held corporation.

The respondent asserted a dramatic decline in business income and inability to pay support.

The court held that incomplete disclosure justified drawing an adverse inference and applying the Federal Child Support Guidelines methodology using the respondent’s three‑year average Line 150 income.

The court rejected the claimed current income and ordered temporary spousal support based on the historical income average, together with extensive disclosure obligations and valuation of the respondent’s business and income.

In a family law contempt motion arising from alleged non-compliance with access and reunification orders, the father sought a finding of contempt against the mother for frustrating access to a teenage child and failing to support therapeutic reunification.

Applying the strict three-part contempt test, the court held that the original access provision in the 2009 order was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to ground a contempt finding.

The balance of the contempt allegations under later orders was not determined on the written record because the factual controversy required viva voce evidence, including evidence from the child and other witnesses.

The motion was therefore dismissed in part and otherwise adjourned, with costs reserved.

A family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization, and property division following the breakdown of a marriage involving two young children.

The court accepted the recommendation of a custody assessor and granted sole custody to the applicant father while maintaining unsupervised access for the respondent mother, finding that although her parenting lapses were concerning, supervised access was not justified.

The respondent was ordered to pay guideline child support based on her previous year’s income and proportionate section 7 expenses.

Her claim for spousal support and damages was dismissed.

The court also ordered an equalization payment and resolved disputes regarding the value of the matrimonial home, ultimately ordering the transfer of the respondent’s interest to the applicant with a net payment calculated after deductions.